On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> I was also worried about the non-hot-standby case, but I see that the >>>> patch makes sure you can't enable pause when not in hot standby mode. >>>> Which in itself might be surprising - perhaps we need a NOTICE for >>>> when that happens as well? >>> >>> I didn't include this fix in the patch because I prefer FATAL to >>> NOTICE for that. >>> NOTICE doesn't stop recovery. So we might be unable to notice such a NOTICE >>> message and stop the recovery before it's too late, i.e., the recovery has >>> completed at the undesirable point. So I think that emitting FATAL is safer. >> >> I included this fix in the patch, which emits FATAL if >> pause_at_recovery_target >> is enabled while hot standby is disabled and the recovery target is set. > > Eh, this is problematic, because you can't claim in the documentation > (and the comments in recovery.conf.sample) that the parameter has no > effect when Hot Standby is not enabled, and then at the same time make > that combination a FATAL error. I don't have a strong opinion on > whether to change the docs or make it not FATAL, but the two have to > match.
Yeah, since I like the former, I changed the wordings in the doc and recovery.conf.sample. What about the attached patch? > Committing the rest. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
change_recovery_conf_sample_v4.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
