On 13 December 2013 11:58, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-12-13 11:56:47 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 12 December 2013 21:58, Fabrízio de Royes Mello >> <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Reviewing the committed patch I noted that the "CheckForStandbyTrigger()" >> > after the delay was removed. >> > >> > If we promote the standby during the delay and don't check the trigger >> > immediately after the delay, then we will replay undesired WALs records. >> > >> > The attached patch add this check. >> >> I removed it because it was after the pause. I'll replace it, but >> before the pause. > > Doesn't after the pause make more sense? If somebody promoted while we > were waiting, we want to recognize that before rolling forward? The wait > can take a long while after all?
That would change the way pause currently works, which is OOS for that patch. I'm happy to discuss such a change, but if agreed, it would need to apply in all cases, not just this one. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
