Horton

Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-21T21:19:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hello,

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
> > the backward-compatibility for that.
> > 
> > Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
> > tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
> > from doing that. But you think that we should not drop that because
> > there are still some users for that?  
> 
> It would be good to ask around to folks maintaining HA solutions about
> that change at least, as there could be a point in still letting
> promotion to happen in this case, but switch silently to the fast
> path.

FWIW, PAF relies on pg_ctl promote. No need for non-fast promotion.

Regards,

Commits

  1. Remove non-fast promotion.