On 13 December 2013 11:58, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-13 11:56:47 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 12 December 2013 21:58, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Reviewing the committed patch I noted that the "CheckForStandbyTrigger()"
>> > after the delay was removed.
>> >
>> > If we promote the standby during the delay and don't check the trigger
>> > immediately after the delay, then we will replay undesired WALs records.
>> >
>> > The attached patch add this check.
>> I removed it because it was after the pause. I'll replace it, but
>> before the pause.
> Doesn't after the pause make more sense? If somebody promoted while we
> were waiting, we want to recognize that before rolling forward? The wait
> can take a long while after all?

That would change the way pause currently works, which is OOS for that patch.

I'm happy to discuss such a change, but if agreed, it would need to
apply in all cases, not just this one.

 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:

Reply via email to