On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 11:42 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:37 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 10:13 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > > > I'll wait 24 hours before committing, to > > > provide a last chance for anyone who wants to complain about dropping > > > promote_trigger_file. > > > > Remove "promote_trigger_file"? Now I have never seen anybody use that > > parameter, but I don't think that it is a good idea to deviate from our > > usual standard of deprecating a feature for about five years before > > actually removing it. > > I'm not sure what the guidelines are here, however years have gone by > since pg_ctl promote [1] in 2011 and pg_promote() [2] in 2018 were > added. With two such alternatives in place for many years, it was sort > of an undeclared deprecation of promote_trigger_file GUC. And the > changes required to move to newer ways from the GUC aren't that hard > for those who're still relying on the GUC. Therefore, I think it's now > time for us to do away with the GUC.
I disagree. With the same argument, you could rip out "serial", since we have supported identity columns since v11. I understand the desire to avoid needless wakeups, but isn't it possible to only perform the regular poll if "promote_trigger_file" is set? Yours, Laurenz Albe
