At Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:28:07 +0900, Ian Barwick <ian.barw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in > On 2020/04/22 6:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900 > >> Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > >>>> 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. > > AFAICT repmgr uses 'pg_ctl promote', and has since version 3.0 > > (released > > in mid 2015). It was only 3.3.2 (mid 2017) that supported Postgres > > 10, > > so it seems fairly safe to assume that the removal won't be a problem. > > Correct, repmgr uses "pg_ctl promote" or pg_promote() (if available), > and > won't be affected by this change.
For the record, the pgsql resource agent uses "pg_ctl promote" and working with fast-promote. Auxiliary tools for it is assuming fast-promote. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
