Re: [HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT - PM_HOT_STANDBY PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT - PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY +1.  From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state transition happens

[HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-14 Thread Robert Haas
While looking through postmaster.c and xlog.c I discovered that we're being a little bit loose about our use of terminology. Maybe this was right when committed (I think, at that point, Hot Standby was always on) but it's not right any more. It appears that we only enter the

Re: [HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT - PM_HOT_STANDBY PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT - PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY +1. From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a later time, or perhaps