On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:47 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > 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?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression the "prefer the former message" meant we were not adding a new signal and pmstate? James
