Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 20:59 +0200, Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > >> There are some good reasons why a switchover could be an appropriate >> means in case the DB is facing troubles. It may be that the root cause >> is not the DB itsself, but used resources or other things which are >> going crazy and hit the DB first ( we've seen a lot of these >> unbelievable things which made us quite sensible for robustness >> aspects). Therefore we want to have control on the DB recovery. >> If you don't want to see this option as a GUC parameter, would it be >> acceptable to have it as a new postmaster cmd line option ? > > Even if you had this, you still need to STONITH just in case the > failover happens by mistake.
Yes. On second thought, probably we should solve this kind of problem outside of Postgres. > Is there a possibility to deactivate the restart and to force the postmaster > to simply exit at the end ? > The background is that we will have a watchdog process which will in > this case perform a fast switchover to the standby side (in case of > syncronous replication) or will restart the db by its own and in addition > will perform some specific actions. To return to the original Harald's problem, the watchdog process can shoot postmaster before doing the next action. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
