On 2013-12-13 13:44:30 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 13 December 2013 13:22, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2013-12-13 13:09:13 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On 13 December 2013 11:58, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> >> I removed it because it was after the pause. I'll replace it, but > >> >> before the pause. > >> > > >> > Doesn't after the pause make more sense? If somebody promoted while we > >> > were waiting, we want to recognize that before rolling forward? The wait > >> > can take a long while after all? > >> > >> That would change the way pause currently works, which is OOS for that > >> patch. > > > > But this feature isn't pause itself - it's imo something > > independent. Note that we currently > > a) check pause again after recoveryApplyDelay(), > > b) do check for promotion if the sleep in recoveryApplyDelay() is > > interrupted. So not checking after the final sleep seems confusing. > > I'm proposing the attached patch.
LOoks good, although I'd move it down below the comment ;) > This patch implements a consistent view of recovery pause, which is > that when paused, we don't check for promotion, during or immediately > after. That is user noticeable behaviour and shouldn't be changed > without thought and discussion on a separate thread with a clear > descriptive title. (I might argue in favour of it myself, I'm not yet > decided). Some more improvements in that are certainly would be good... 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
