On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY >> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY > > +1. From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state > transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a > later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work) > is not relevant. What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in > hot-standby backends. So the current naming overspecifies the > meaning of the state and the transition event.
Done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers