Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0FE632196 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:54:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01758-01 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:54:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-fx0-f174.google.com (mail-fx0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF62637031 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:54:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so804897fxm.19 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:54:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kz34us+brGjnNK5QdcODf+5+8Wjz5C8YPK0Vh0E6kdM=; b=w1I8I/4hseA0sYiC9VI0fN/lCONM5PYxVJzDtktmlD+J0FESDFupluT6RLyIiGXVoK 4afbH/MAaljLVFBgZHhpRMWr6S82A+hSV3nseRRfBMyJk2VI+tm0vwL5l0l7fffcc47F n7sFfrh5YDfPtnjN5wv6BUA0lp8WB8PQ7WuMg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xRug6huy8Td6YUjyW9/tEUfL+M7vkuCWHU0mcfvEKCif/F//KU738zUsrmP0vbIMGa jMuiVjVGHnKti2sh7nOjgpGghKxLCHP9K9xflj4Mo+lA+SkYEpth3/vst2boG0x9/VlY qHkqgHACAoOs7yHpFTQyEoaa+6bB+01aF5erc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.114.74 with SMTP id d10mr555822faq.87.1238068486878; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:54:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1238064633.16568.420.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> References: <3f0b79eb0903242329j12865d55s348f5c873a956e71@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10903242350i505a9f6bsa7ba347dc02f90b6@mail.gmail.com> <3f0b79eb0903250144k453b3927mffa8b08678ed057b@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10903250155w34bd79dcvfab2ad5c95e56011@mail.gmail.com> <49C9F255.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov> <1d4e0c10903250848x4e067c86ue611c0c50f25e49d@mail.gmail.com> <3f0b79eb0903251851v5936d6b4x49997ac8f04b98b9@mail.gmail.com> <1d4e0c10903260032v767da1fdg6cf7cea86c64cc45@mail.gmail.com> <1238064633.16568.420.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1d4e0c10903260454p10107c23j7ff9a3de8be09dde@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby From: Guillaume Smet To: Simon Riggs Cc: Fujii Masao , Kevin Grittner , pgsql-hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.106 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200903/1044 X-Sequence-Number: 135722 Hi Simon. On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Earlier, we discussed having a single trigger file that contains an > option rather than two distinct trigger files. That design is better > because it allows the user to choose at failover time, rather than > making a binding decision at config time. That solution would be the > ideal one, IMHO, because it gives user more choice - and would allow us > to keep the -t option meaningfully. In that case the default should be > patience. Or you can define both files in your command line to have the choice. I like the idea of removing -t and adding 2 new options so that people are warned about the intended behavior. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about how we should fix it as I don't use pg_standby personnally, just that we should. The two options you mention have their own merits. -- Guillaume