From: Fujii Masao on
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> postmaster.c contains the following comment just above the definition
> of PMState.  It appears to be out of date:
>
>  * After reaching a consistent point in WAL redo, startup process signals
>  * us again, and we switch to PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. There's currently
>  * no difference between PM_RECOVERY and PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT, but we
>  * could start accepting connections to perform read-only queries at this
>  * point, if we had the infrastructure to do that.

But the first sentence of the above seems to be correct and helpful. No?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Robert Haas on
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> postmaster.c contains the following comment just above the definition
>> of PMState.  It appears to be out of date:
>>
>>  * After reaching a consistent point in WAL redo, startup process signals
>>  * us again, and we switch to PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. There's currently
>>  * no difference between PM_RECOVERY and PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT, but we
>>  * could start accepting connections to perform read-only queries at this
>>  * point, if we had the infrastructure to do that.
>
> But the first sentence of the above seems to be correct and helpful. No?

Yes. I was just quoting the whole thing for context.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers