Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Yeah, I get it.  But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in a different set of situations. Other than PITR, what situations? Hot backup? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-21 Thread Josh Berkus
On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in a different set of situations. Other than PITR, what situations? Hot backup? Hot backup == PITR. You're

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Yeah, I get it.  But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in a different set of situations. Other than

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-21 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Yeah, I get it.  But I think standby

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-21 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote: And I think Tom touched on this point in the recovery.conf/recovery.done thread a bit too. Doh! That's this thread /me slinks away, ashamed for not even taking a close look at the to/cc list... -- Aidan Van Dyk    

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: that makes it look like one of the WAL archive transfer trigger files, which does not seem like a great analogy.  The pg_standby documentation suggests names like foo.trigger for failover triggers, which is a bit better

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On fre, 2011-09-16 at 11:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: #1 Use empty recovery.ready file to enter arhicve recovery. recovery.conf is not read automatically. All recovery parameters are expected to be specified in

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com wrote: On 15-09-2011 23:54, Fujii Masao wrote: #1 Use empty recovery.ready file to enter arhicve recovery. recovery.conf is not read automatically. All recovery parameters are expected to be specified in

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: This seems like it's already predetermining the outcome of the argument about recovery.conf.  Mind you, I'm not unhappy with this choice, but it's

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On fre, 2011-09-16 at 01:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: As far as the other issues go, I think there is actually a prerequisite discussion to be had here, which is whether we are turning the recovery parameters into plain

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I sympathise with this view, to an extent. If people want to put all parameters in one file, they can do so. So +1 to that. Should they be forced to adopt that new capability by us deliberately breaking their existing setups? No. So -1 to that.

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Josh Berkus
I don't buy this argument at all. I don't believe that recovery.conf is part of anyone's automated processes at all, let alone to an extent that they won't be able to cope with a change to rationalize the file layout. And most especially I don't buy that someone who does want to keep using

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Josh Berkus
All, First, if we're going to change behavior, I assert that we should stop calling stuff recovery and either call it replica or standby. Our use of the word recovery confuses users; it is historical in nature and requires an understanding of PostgreSQL internals to know why it's called that.

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: I'll go further and say that we only want one trigger file by default, one which either enables or disables recovery.  I'll further suggest that we: a) have a standby.on file which puts the server in replica/recovery mode

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Josh Berkus
On 9/20/11 10:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote: I like the idea of some kind of sentinel file that tells the server to start up in recovery mode. But instead of having the user remove it to cause a promotion, I think the server should remove it when it does promote. That's more like what we've done

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: First, if we're going to change behavior, I assert that we should stop calling stuff recovery and either call it replica or standby. Our use of the word recovery confuses users; it is historical in nature and requires an understanding of PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: First, if we're going to change behavior, I assert that we should stop calling stuff recovery and either call it replica or standby.  Our use of the word recovery confuses users; it is

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Are we all talking about the same thing?  In my mind recovery.conf is for configuring a point-in-time archive recovery run.  It's got nothing to do with either replication or standbys.

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Josh Berkus
The point I'm trying to make is that it seems like this discussion is getting driven entirely by the standby case, without remembering that recovery.conf was originally designed for, and is still used in, a significantly different use-case. Maybe we had better take two steps back and think

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Are we all talking about the same thing?  In my mind recovery.conf is for configuring a point-in-time archive

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: No.  pg_settings already has a couple dozen developer parameters which nobody not on this mailing list understands.  Adding the recovery parameters to it wouldn't confuse anyone further, and would have the advantage of

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-16 Thread Tom Lane
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: We have three choices. Which do you like the best? I'm in favor of defining a separate, content-free trigger file to enable archive recovery. Not sure about the name recovery.ready, though --- that makes it look like one of the WAL archive transfer

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2011-09-16 at 01:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: As far as the other issues go, I think there is actually a prerequisite discussion to be had here, which is whether we are turning the recovery parameters into plain old GUCs or not. If they are plain old GUCs, then they will presumably

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2011-09-16 at 11:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: #1 Use empty recovery.ready file to enter arhicve recovery. recovery.conf is not read automatically. All recovery parameters are expected to be specified in postgresql.conf. If you must specify them in recovery.conf, you need to add

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-16 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
On 15-09-2011 23:54, Fujii Masao wrote: #1 Use empty recovery.ready file to enter arhicve recovery. recovery.conf is not read automatically. All recovery parameters are expected to be specified in postgresql.conf. If you must specify them in recovery.conf, you need to add include 'recovery.conf'

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-16 Thread Joshua Berkus
I'm in favor of defining a separate, content-free trigger file to enable archive recovery. Not sure about the name recovery.ready, though --- that makes it look like one of the WAL archive transfer trigger files, which does not seem like a great analogy. The pg_standby documentation

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On tis, 2011-09-13 at 17:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: So treat postgresql.conf as if it has an automatic include recovery.conf in it. The file format is the same. Sounds good.  That would also have the merit that you

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: If we'd like to treat recovery.conf as if it's under the data directory, I'm afraid that we should add complicated code to parse recovery.conf after the value of data_directory has been determined from postgresql.conf. Furthermore, what if

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tor, 2011-09-15 at 16:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On tis, 2011-09-13 at 17:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: So treat postgresql.conf as if it has an automatic include recovery.conf in it. The file format is the same.

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Alternatively, we could just forget about the whole thing and move everything to postgresql.conf and treat recovery.conf as a simple empty signal file.  I don't know if that's necessarily better. Seems like it might be

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: It seems to need a bit more time until we've reached a consensus about the treatment of recovery.conf. How about committing the core patch first, and addressing the recovery.conf issue as a different patch later? The attached patch provides a core

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-15 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: This seems like it's already predetermining the outcome of the argument about recovery.conf.  Mind you, I'm not unhappy with this choice, but it's hardly implementing only behavior that's not being debated. If we're

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2011-09-13 at 17:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: So treat postgresql.conf as if it has an automatic include recovery.conf in it. The file format is the same. Sounds good. That would also have the merit that you could use, say, different memory settings during recovery. -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2011-09-13 at 14:46 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the capability to specify recovery parameters in recovery.conf) is required? I think parameters related to a particular recovery, e.g., recovery_target_time, fit better into a

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On tis, 2011-09-13 at 14:46 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the capability to specify recovery parameters in recovery.conf) is required? I think parameters related to a

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-13 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On tis, 2011-09-13 at 14:46 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the capability to specify recovery

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-12 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: If the same parameter is specified in both file, the setting in recovery.conf overrides that in postgresql.conf. In this case, SHOW command displays the settings in postgresql.conf even though they are not used at all.

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-12 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get rid of recovery.conf and use a

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:07, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: I'm in favor of this.  People are sufficiently confused by the existing behavior that we're not going to confuse them further by changing it. Fwiw as someone

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:56, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg02343.php In previous discussion, we've reached the consensus that we should unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf. The attached patch does that. The patch is

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:56, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg02343.php In previous discussion, we've reached the consensus that we should unite

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:15, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:56, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg02343.php In

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists state. +1. If it's not a configuration

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make it clear it's not a config file, but just

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Josh Berkus
On 9/9/11 7:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists

Re: [HACKERS] unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

2011-09-09 Thread Greg Stark
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: I'm in favor of this.  People are sufficiently confused by the existing behavior that we're not going to confuse them further by changing it. Fwiw as someone who *was* confused previously, it now makes perfect sense to me. We

<    1   2