agora inbox for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:14:40 +0100
Message-ID: <550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABUevEzZaXqMzTryrEo1Z8dmQgbmL0bh6tVHvSQqyTqfmn9Wkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150312145202.GD20199@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<20150315132707.GB19792@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CABUevEzZaXqMzTryrEo1Z8dmQgbmL0bh6tVHvSQqyTqfmn9Wkw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 15/03/15 14:51, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2015-03-12 15:52:02 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>      >       /*
>      >        * Override any inconsistent requests. Not that this is a
>     change
>      >        * of behaviour in 9.5; prior to this we simply ignored a
>     request
>      >        * to pause if hot_standby = off, which was surprising
>     behaviour.
>      >        */
>      >       if (recoveryTargetAction == RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_PAUSE &&
>      >               recoveryTargetActionSet &&
>      >               standbyState == STANDBY_DISABLED)
>      >               recoveryTargetAction = RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_SHUTDOWN;
>
>     While it's easy enough to fix I rather dislike the whole intent here
>     though. *Silently* switching the mode of operation in a rather
>     significant way seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least we need
>     to emit a LOG message about this; but I think it'd be much better to
>     error out instead.
>
>     <9.5's behaviour was already quite surprising. But changing things to a
>     different surprising behaviour seems like a bad idea.
>
>
> +1. Especially for "sensitive" operations like this, having
> predictable-behavior-or-error is usually the best choice.
>

Thinking about it again now, it does seem that ignoring user setting 
because it's in conflict with another user setting is a bad idea and I 
think we in general throw errors on those.

So +1 from me also.

-- 
  Petr Jelinek                  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



view thread (18+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com>
Permalink:  ../../550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com

reply

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: petr@2ndquadrant.com, magnus@hagander.net, andres@2ndquadrant.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off
  In-Reply-To: <550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox