Re: [HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY >> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY > > +1.  From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state > transition happens immediately upon reaching cons

Re: [HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY > PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY +1. From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we

[HACKERS] recovery consistent != hot standby

2010-05-14 Thread Robert Haas
While looking through postmaster.c and xlog.c I discovered that we're being a little bit loose about our use of terminology. Maybe this was right when committed (I think, at that point, Hot Standby was always on) but it's not right any more. It appears that we only enter the PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTEN