Message-ID: <4A0B10C7.2040309@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:26:15 +0300
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Organization: EnterpriseDB
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
References: <3f0b79eb0903242329j12865d55s348f5c873a956e71@mail.gmail.com>
	<1239381103.16396.30.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<3f0b79eb0904122252t1f4c5860v919d199f399ccf72@mail.gmail.com>
	<3f0b79eb0904132241p18084914g792cb8e5ab3eebb3@mail.gmail.com>
	<3f0b79eb0904150101pb1c59a3ubb422867e8e6a944@mail.gmail.com>
	<49EE1E3F.9050307@enterprisedb.com>
	<3f0b79eb0904212209i7fbd8b68k71db1fef09c62751@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F01D79.8020805@enterprisedb.com>
	<3f0b79eb0904230515p751b5248n6ef96880617db055@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A095A39.3030100@enterprisedb.com>
	<3f0b79eb0905130127u3a3275b1w79f4d8cb729ded36@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A0A86D2.9080602@enterprisedb.com> <1985.1242234105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1985.1242234105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending 
>> the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed 
>> many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that.
> 
>> I think we should leave back-branches as is, and go with Simon's 
>> suggestion to add new "recovery_end_command" that's run when the 
>> recovery is finished. That's simpler and more reliable than any of the 
>> other approaches we've discussed, and might become handy for other 
>> purposes as well.
> 
>> Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that?
> 
> Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
> on the table for 8.4?  It certainly smells more like a new feature
> than a bug fix.

This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature. It's working as 
designed. But people seem to be surprised about the current behavior (me 
included), and we don't currently provide the behavior that most people 
actually want. I think we should fix it for 8.4.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com