From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: fabriziomello@gmail.com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Time-Delayed Standbys
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:38:48 +0100
Message-ID: <20131210093848.GG27840@awork2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A697F3.8030403@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <CAFcNs+oXq5ZPaKARRn3VZGzX+AnTZCaEjR6VmQT_tvoFiqgaSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+U5nML64Y7Nf0mpQirk-tOWrV+ZQ3y8DdRgk2mP+e3kGT16Mw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFcNs+rAJO6wvzN8zQCTUpii0mC9Ax51JxVhWTsos7xsFdwXjw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoaCL4G+YotjjjFM+J_h0nSkp4gXiiBPDQGHxTcc_T0w-w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFcNs+r-GyizHAPDvRz=3XR3BYLUqxpqxrvJq8spk4PJe5hxAA@mail.gmail.com>
<52A59D10.7020209@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<52A5A095.5020002@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<20131209112937.GA27840@awork2.anarazel.de>
<52A697F3.8030403@lab.ntt.co.jp>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2013-12-10 13:26:27 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
> (2013/12/09 20:29), Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2013-12-09 19:51:01 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
> >>Add my comment. We have to consider three situations.
> >>
> >>1. PITR
> >>2. replication standby
> >>3. replication standby with restore_command
> >>
> >>I think this patch cannot delay in 1 situation.
> >
> >Why?
>
> I have three reasons.
None of these reasons seem to be of technical nature, right?
> 1. It is written in document. Can we remove it?
> 2. Name of this feature is "Time-delayed *standbys*", not "Time-delayed
> *recovery*". Can we change it?
I don't think that'd be a win in clarity. But perhaps somebody else has
a better suggestion?
> 3. I think it is unnessesary in master PITR. And if it can delay in master
> PITR, it will become master at unexpected timing, not to continue to
> recovery. It is meaningless.
"master PITR"? What's that? All PITR is based on recovery.conf and thus
not really a "master"?
Why should we prohibit using this feature in PITR? I don't see any
advantage in doing so. If somebody doesn't want the delay, they
shouldn't set it in the configuration file. End of story.
There's not really a that meaningful distinction between PITR and
replication using archive_command. Especially when using
*pause_after. I think this feature will be used in a lot of scenarios in
which PITR is currently used.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp, robertmhaas@gmail.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Time-Delayed Standbys
In-Reply-To: <20131210093848.GG27840@awork2.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox