On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:50 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:59:49 +0300 > Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 29.04.2019 18:05, Ken Gaillot пишет: > > > > > > > > > Why does not it check OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify? > > > > > > > > I was just not aware of this env variable. Sadly, it is not > > > > documented > > > > anywhere :( > > > > > > It's not a Pacemaker-created value like the other notify > > > variables -- > > > all user-specified meta-attributes are passed that way. We do > > > need to > > > document that. > > > > OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify is passed also when "notify" meta- > > attribute > > is *not* specified, as well as a couple of others. But not all
Hopefully in that case it's passed as false? I vaguely remember some case where clone attributes were mistakenly passed to non-clone resources, but I think notify is always accurate for clone resources. > > possible > > attributes. And some OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_* variables that are > > passed do > > not correspond to any user settable and documented meta-attribute, > > like > > OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_clone. > > Sorry guys, now I am confused. A well-known side effect of pacemaker ;) > Is it safe or not to use OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify? You both doesn't > seem to > agree where it comes from. Is it only a non expected side effect or > is it safe > and stable code path in Pacemaker we can rely on? It's reliable. All user-specified meta-attributes end up as environment variables -- it's just meta-attributes that *aren't* specified by the user that may or may not show up (but hopefully with the correct value). > > Does it worth a patch in pgsqlms RA? > > Thanks, -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/