Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers
Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2022-11-16T15:04:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 12:47, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:34 PM Simon Riggs > <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > Reposting v6 now so that patch tester doesn't think this has failed > > when the patch on other thread gets applied. > > Intention of the patch, that is, to get rid of promote_trigger_file > GUC sometime in future, looks good to me. However, the timeout change > to 60 sec from 5 sec seems far-reaching. While it discourages the use > of the GUC, it can impact many existing production servers that still > rely on promote_trigger_file as it can increase the failover times > impacting SLAs around failover. The purpose of 60s is to allow for power reduction, so 5s won't do. promote_trigger_file is not tested and there are better ways, so deprecating it in this release is fine. Anyone that relies on it can update their mechanisms to a supported one with a one-line change. Realistically, anyone using it won't be on the latest release anyway, at least for a long time, since if they use manual methods then they are well behind the times. -- 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