On 2021-Mar-07, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote: > > > > Here's an idea: > > > > > > * hot_standby=on, before reaching consistent state > > > FATAL: database is not accepting connections > > > DETAIL: Consistent state has not yet been reached. > > > > > > * hot_standby=off, past consistent state > > > FATAL: database is not accepting connections > > > DETAIL: Hot standby mode is disabled. > > > > > > * hot_standby=off, before reaching consistent state > > > FATAL: database is not accepting connections [...] > > > DETAIL: Hot standby mode is disabled.
> > I prefer the former message. Because the latter message meams that > > we need to output the different messages based on whether the consistent > > state is reached or not, and the followings would be necessary to implement > > that. This looks a bit overkill to me against the purpose, at least for me. > > Agreed. If hot standby is off, why would the admin care about whether > it's consistent yet or not? Great, so we're agreed on the messages to emit. James, are you updating your patch, considering Fujii's note about the new signal and pmstate that need to be added? -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
