Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-02-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:09 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Could also be something like "allow_connections_during_recovery". > > +1 (should we say "continuous recovery?") Rather than a boolean, it seems more useful to specify a parameter that has some additional usefulness, if we are going to hav

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:17 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> Simon Riggs wrote: > > There are considerable benefits to having it turned on during PITR > > > > Please read this to see why > > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby#Dynamic_Control_of_Recovery > > Am I reading this righ

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Kevin Grittner
>>> Simon Riggs wrote: > There are considerable benefits to having it turned on during PITR > > Please read this to see why > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby#Dynamic_Control_of_Recovery Am I reading this right? What I get out of it is that users can connect to the database during

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >> > >> It is on by default. Why would you want it "off" by default? > > > > Would it slow down the normal recovery after a crash if I don't have > > any slaves? > > And how about d

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 13:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Depends on the setting :-) It is "hot_standby=off" by default, right? > > > I think having a double negative "disable_hot_standby=off" would be

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
> Could also be something like "allow_connections_during_recovery". +1 (should we say "continuous recovery?") > I'd keep the word "replication" out of this.. +1. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.po

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Kevin Grittner
>>> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> It is on by default. Why would you want it "off" by default? > > Would it slow down the normal recovery after a crash if I don't have > any slaves? And how about during "traditional" PITR recovery? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mail

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Depends on the setting :-) It is "hot_standby=off" by default, right? I think having a double negative "disable_hot_standby=off" would be awkward. It is on by default. Why would you want it "off

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Depends on the setting :-) It is "hot_standby=off" by default, right? > > I think having a double negative "disable_hot_standby=off" would be > > awkward. > > It is on by default. Why would you want it "off" by

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: > > Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? > > (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we > > should pick something more descriptive. > > Could also be something l

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > I'll add it now, default = on. > > > > > > Did you mean "off"? > > > > No, do you? >

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Gregory Stark
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Merlin Moncure wrote: >> Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? >> (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we >> should pick something more descriptive. > > Could also be something like "allow_connections_during_recove

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Merlin Moncure wrote: Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we should pick something more descriptive. Could also be something like "allow_connections_during_recovery". I'd keep the word "replication" ou

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 1/23/09, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > I'll add it now, default = on. > > > > > > Did you mean "off"? > > > > No, do you? > > > Depends on the

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I'll add it now, default = on. > > > > Did you mean "off"? > > No, do you? Depends on the setting :-) It is "hot_standby=off" by default, right? I thin

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 14:28 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server > >> always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server > always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not > be what you want. > > I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I'll add it now, default = on. > > Did you mean "off"? No, do you? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-h

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean "off"? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server > always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not > be what you want. > > I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would

[HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would become handy if the unimaginable happens and there's a bug in the hot