Fujii Masao wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: >> >>> If you do this, then you would have to change the procedure written into >>> the 8.3 docs also. Docs aren't backpatchable. >>> >>> What you propose is *better* than raw pg_standby is now, but still not >>> enough in all cases, as I think you know. >>> >> No, I don't. What is the case where it doesn't work? >> > > It's the case which I described as the 2nd comment to your > proposal. > > 1. pg_standby tries to restore a non-existent file > 1-1. remove the trigger file > 1-2. pg_standby exits with non-zero code > 2. the startup process tries to read it from pg_xlog > 2-1. it is applied > 3. the startup process tries to restore the next file using pg_standby > I'm a little confused. After pg_standby returned non-zero as indication for end-of-recovery, the startup process shouldn't request another file from pg_standby, right? Which means 3. should never happen (unless the startup process stalls and restarts, in which case I find it normal that another trigger required).
Regards, Andreas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers