On 2013-11-20 08:10:44 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > > > >> > * I am not sure I like "recovery.trigger" as a name. It seems to close > >> > to what I've seen people use to trigger failover and too close to > >> > trigger_file. > > > >> This name was chosen and kept in accordance to the spec of this > >> feature. Looks fine for me... > > > > I still think "start_as_standby.trigger" or such would be much clearer > > and far less likely to be confused with the promotion trigger file. > > > > the function of the file is to inform the server it's in recovery and > it needs to consider recovery parameters, not to make the server a > standby. yes, i admit that is half the way to make the server a > standby. for example, if you are doing PITR and stopping the server > before some specific point (recovery_target_*) then > "start_as_standby.trigger" will has no meaning and could confuse > people
'recovery' includes crash recovery, that's why I quite dislike your function name since it's not crash recovery you're checking for since during that we certainly do not want to interpet those parameters. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
