On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot >> standby, then pause". > > I don't like that one much. > >> I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound >> reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to >> make it user-configurable, though. > > I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when > hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case > where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way - > just ignore the pause request and enter normal running.
When hot_standby = on and the recovery target is ahead of the consistent point, the server doesn't enter normal running since FATAL error happens. So I think that it's more consistent to prevent the server from entering normal running also when hot_standby = off. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
