On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>> You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot >>>> standby, then pause". >>> >>> I don't like that one much. >>> >>>> I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound >>>> reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to >>>> make it user-configurable, though. >>> >>> I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when >>> hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case >>> where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way - >>> just ignore the pause request and enter normal running. >> >> When hot_standby = on and the recovery target is ahead of the consistent >> point, >> the server doesn't enter normal running since FATAL error happens. So I think >> that it's more consistent to prevent the server from entering normal >> running also >> when hot_standby = off. > > Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't > reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway - > shut down is the only option no matter what.
Presumably you mean that the way its currently coded is the way it should stay? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
