Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers
Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>,
Jim Nasby <nasbyj@amazon.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-11-18T18:54:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- hibernate_startup.v8.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v8
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 20:38, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:55 AM Simon Riggs > <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > No, it will have a direct effect only on people using promote_trigger_file > > who do not read and act upon the deprecation notice before upgrading > > by making a one line change to their failover scripts. > > TBH, I wonder if we shouldn't just nuke promote_trigger_file. > pg_promote was added in 2018, and pg_ctl promote was added in 2011. So > even if we haven't said promote_trigger_file was deprecated, it hasn't > been the state-of-the-art way of doing this in a really long time. If > we think that there are still a lot of people using it, or if popular > tools are relying on it, then perhaps a deprecation period is > warranted anyway. But I think we should at least consider the > possibility that it's OK to just get rid of it right away. I agree. I can't see a reason to keep it anymore. I'm nervous about not having any wakeup at all, but since we are removing the parameter there is no other reason not to do as Andres suggests. New version attached, which assumes that the SIGALRMs are silenced on the other thread. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Commits
-
Remove promote_trigger_file.
- cd4329d9393f 16.0 landed
-
Add pg_promote function
- 10074651e335 12.0 cited
-
pg_ctl promote
- 4695da5ae97b 9.1.0 cited