On 05/22/2015 12:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> It seems worth adding a hint and/or changing the error message to be >> more descriptive when in this state. Any options about what should >> be logged before I start putting together a patch? > > Yeah, might be worthwhile. Perhaps: > > FATAL: the database system is in standby mode and hot_standby is not > enabled > > Or just: > > FATAL: the database system is in cold standby mode
Warm Standby is what we called it in the past, so I think we should be consistent. Otherwise +1. The additional benefit of this is that it would (hopefully) allow us to distinguish between a warm standby which was still reading its own xlogs (i.e. in crash recovery) and a warm standby which was using the restore_command (i.e. standby-ing). For that reason, it would be ideal if the new message only displayed once the restore_command starts being used. That is: Cold Standby == DB Snapshot and a huge folder of WAL files (i.e. Barman) Warm Standby == hot_standby=off, recoveryconf.standby=on Hot Standby == hot_standby=on, recoveryconf.standby=on -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
