Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-09T19:50:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/1/17 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > OK, so here's the patch, plus doc cleanup patch. I don't think this patch is likely to succeed if we throw in more ideas in every round. I think we have or are approaching agreement on moving recovery.conf into postgresql.conf, making the settings reloadable, and adding signal (formerly trigger) files to trigger recovery or standby. I think that is a useful change, but it's already big enough and needs extensive reviewing and testing. All the other stuff, such as regrouping the recovery parameters, removing the hot_standby setting, renaming the primary_* parameters, making the directory of the signal files configurable, should be separate patches that should be discussed separately. I think the arguments for these latter changes are weaker, and tactically I would focus on getting the recovery.conf move in before thinking about all the other ones. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services