Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Robert Haas
<robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@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: 2022-11-21T08:40:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 07:36 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 05:07, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 10:13 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > > > I'll wait 24 hours before committing, to > > > provide a last chance for anyone who wants to complain about dropping > > > promote_trigger_file. > > > > Remove "promote_trigger_file"? Now I have never seen anybody use that > > parameter, but I don't think that it is a good idea to deviate from our > > usual standard of deprecating a feature for about five years before > > actually removing it. > > We aren't removing the ability to promote, just enforcing a change to > a better mechanism, hence I don't see a reason for a long(er) > deprecation period than we have already had. We have had a deprecation period? I looked at the documentation, but found no mention of a deprecation. How hard can it be to leave the GUC and only poll for the existence of the file if it is set? I personally don't need the GUC, and I know nobody who does, but I think we should not be cavalier about introducing unnecessary compatibility breaks. Yours, Laurenz Albe
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