Horton

Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-02-14T17:10:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Remove rare corner case for data loss when triggering standby server.

Fujii,

* Fujii Masao (masao.fujii@gmail.com) wrote:
> Yeah, I rebased the patch to the current git master and attached it.

Reviewing this, I just had a couple of comments and questions.  Overall,
I think it looks good and hence will be marking it 'Ready for
Committer'.

 * You removed trigger_file from the list in
   doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml and I'm not sure I agree with
   that.  It's still perfectly valid and could be used by someone
   instead of pg_ctl promote.  I'd recommend two things:
   - Adding comments into this recovery.conf snippet
   - Adding a comment indicationg that trigger_file is only needed if
	 you're not using pg_ctl promote.

 * I'm not happy that pg_ctl.c doesn't #include something which defines
   all the file names which are used, couldn't we use a header which
   makes sense and is pulled in by pg_ctl.c and xlog.c to #define all of
   these?  Still, that's not really the fault of this patch.

 * I'm a bit worried that there's just only so many USR signals that we
   can send and it looks like we're burning another one here.  Should we
   be considering a better way to do this?

   	Thanks,

		Stephen