On 7/10/13 9:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10.07.2013 02:54, Josh Berkus wrote:
One bit of complexity I'd like to see go away is that we have two
trigger files: one to put a server into replication, and one to promote
it. The promotion trigger file is a legacy of warm standby, I believe.
On 10.07.2013 02:54, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/08/2013 11:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
1. MOVE SETTINGS
All settings move into the postgresql.conf.
Comment: AFAIK, all agree this.
Good to go then.
+1.
2. RELOCATE RECOVERY PARAMETER FILE(s)
As of 9.2, relocating the postgresql.conf means there
On 07/08/2013 11:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> This needs to be broken down rather than just say "I like Greg's
> proposal", or I have written a patch. Writing the patch is not the/an
> issue.
>
> Greg's points were these (I have numbered them and named/characterised them)
Thanks for the nice summa
On 5 July 2013 19:49, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert, Simon, All,
>
> On 04/01/2013 04:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at
> 11:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> a) recovery parameters are made into GUCs (for which we have a patch
>>> from Fujii)
>>> b) all processes automatically read
On 2013/07/09, at 4:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, it would be good to revive this thread now, which is the
>> beginning of the development cycle. As of now, just to recall
>> everybody, an agreement on this patch still needs to be found... Simon
On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, it would be good to revive this thread now, which is the
> beginning of the development cycle. As of now, just to recall
> everybody, an agreement on this patch still needs to be found... Simon
> is concerned with backward compatibility. Greg p
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert, Simon, All,
>
> On 04/01/2013 04:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at
> 11:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> a) recovery parameters are made into GUCs (for which we have a patch
>>> from Fujii)
>>> b) all processes automatic
Robert, Simon, All,
On 04/01/2013 04:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at
11:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> a) recovery parameters are made into GUCs (for which we have a patch
>> from Fujii)
>> b) all processes automatically read recovery.conf as the last step in
>> reading configu
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> What we want to do is make recovery parameters into GUCs, allowing
> them to be reset by SIGHUP and also to allow all users to see the
> parameters in use, from any session.
>
> The existing mechanism for recovery is that
> 1. we put parameter
Josh Berkus writes:
> The desire to move recovery.conf/trigger to a different directory is
> definitely wanted by our Debian contingent. Right now, the fact that
> Debian has all .confs in /etc/, but that it doesn't work to relocate
> recovery.conf, is a constant source of irritation.
It seems l
Simon, All,
The new approach seems fine to me; I haven't looked at the code. If Tom
doesn't feel like it's overly complicated, then this seems like a good
compromise.
The desire to move recovery.conf/trigger to a different directory is
definitely wanted by our Debian contingent. Right now, the
On 29 March 2013 01:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I highly recommend that
> you use one of the latest updated version I sent. Fujii's version had some
> bugs, one of them being that as standbyModeRequested can be set to true if
> specified in postgresql.conf, a portion of the code using in xlog.c
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:56:50PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 March 2013 13:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29 March 2013 01:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Simon Riggs
> >> > wrote:
> >>
On 29 March 2013 13:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 29 March 2013 01:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Simon Riggs
>> > wrote:
>> Early discussions had difficulties because of the lack of config
>> directo
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 29 March 2013 01:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> Early discussions had difficulties because of the lack of config
> directories, include_if_exists and this patch. We now have the
> t
On 29 March 2013 01:17, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The main argument on which this proposal is based on is to keep
> backward-compatibility.
The main objective is to get recovery parameters as GUCs, as I said
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> What we want to do is mak
Hi,
The main argument on which this proposal is based on is to keep
backward-compatibility.
This has been discussed before many times and the position of each people
is well-known,
so I am not going back to that...
So, based on *only* what I see in this thread...
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM
What we want to do is make recovery parameters into GUCs, allowing
them to be reset by SIGHUP and also to allow all users to see the
parameters in use, from any session.
The existing mechanism for recovery is that
1. we put parameters in a file called recovery.conf
2. we use the existence of a rec
18 matches
Mail list logo
