On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot >>> standby, then pause". >> >> I don't like that one much. >> >>> I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound >>> reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to >>> make it user-configurable, though. >> >> I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when >> hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case >> where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way - >> just ignore the pause request and enter normal running. > > When hot_standby = on and the recovery target is ahead of the consistent > point, > the server doesn't enter normal running since FATAL error happens. So I think > that it's more consistent to prevent the server from entering normal > running also > when hot_standby = off.
Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway - shut down is the only option no matter what. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
