Prev: [HACKERS] contrib check fail at pgcrypto on Windows Server 2008 64bit 9.0dev(HEAD near alpha5)
Next: contrib check fail at pgcrypto on Windows Server 2008 64bit 9.0dev (HEAD near alpha5)
From: Simon Riggs on 5 Apr 2010 05:32 On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Simon Riggs <sriggs(a)postgresql.org> wrote: > > Log Message: > > ----------- > > Check compulsory parameters in recovery.conf in standby_mode, per docs. > > On the recent discussion (*1), some people argued that specifying neither > primary_conninfo nor restore_command in the standby mode is not unreasonable, > and we reached the consensus that the setting should be allowed. So this > commit doesn't reflect the discussion. How about reverting the commit, > and restarting the discussion if you have complaint against the consensus? > > (*1) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-03/msg01306.php This change was made because on a separate thread Robert Haas complained about the server hanging when only standby_mode was set. I verified the hang and "fixed" the issue. I have added a comment to the previous thread to restart the discussion. If the capability that the server sit quietly doing nothing for ever was somehow important then we should document that both in code and in docs. I am very disconcerted that there are still no docs whatsoever to describe how the server works in these new modes. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- 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: Simon Riggs on 5 Apr 2010 14:46
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Simon Riggs <sriggs(a)postgresql.org> wrote: > > Log Message: > > ----------- > > Check compulsory parameters in recovery.conf in standby_mode, per docs. > > On the recent discussion (*1), some people argued that specifying neither > primary_conninfo nor restore_command in the standby mode is not unreasonable, > and we reached the consensus that the setting should be allowed. So this > commit doesn't reflect the discussion. How about reverting the commit, > and restarting the discussion if you have complaint against the consensus? The attached patch changes the messages and downgrades FATAL to WARNING. Comments? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com |