On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1 May 2013 11:25, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Make fast promotion the default promotion mode. >>> Continue to allow a request for synchronous >>> checkpoints as a mechanism in case of problems. >> >> Is there clean way to request synchronous checkpoint at the standby >> promotion? >> I'm sure that we can do that by creating the file "promote" and >> sending the SIGUSR1 >> signal to the postmaster. Or by using previous version of pg_ctl. >> These are not clean >> and would confuse users. > > I just removed the user interface at Heikki's request, so yes, I can > see its not ideal interface. > > My wish was to have a mechanism should we need it. > > A third option would be to not have any way at all. > > What is your preference?
My preference is adding something like --full-checkpoint option into pg_ctl promote. As far as I understand Heikki's request correctly, he dislikes the approach reusing -m option in pg_ctl promote. That is, previous behavior of the promotion is not "smarter" than current one, but we have to have specified "-m smart" to choose the previous behavior of the promotion. ISTM that his this request makes sense. So I'd like to propose to add new option which would not confuse users, into pg_ctl promote. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
