Hello, On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900 Michael Paquier <mich...@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,
