On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > wrote: > > I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at > > the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery target point". I'd also > > be happy with a warning being emitted in the log if the recovery target > > point isn't reached before reaching the end of WAL, but I don't think it > > makes sense to change the existing behavior. > > Indeed, let's not change the existing behavior. A warning showing up > by default would be useful in itself, even if there are people that I > think set up overly high recovery targets to be sure to replay WAL as > much as possible. As recovery_target_action has meaning when a > recovery target has been reached, I would guess that we would want a > new option that has the same mapping value as recovery_target_action, > except that it activates when the target recovery is *not* reached. > Hence it would be possible to shutdown, pause or promote at will when > recovery completes, and be able to take a separate action is the > recovery target is indeed reached. The default of this parameter would > be "promote", which is what happens now. > Agreed. I understand the complexities with backward compatibility on changing the existing behaviour. Even, I was more inclined towards introducing a new parameter and as suggested, will consider the options pause, shutdown or promote for new parameter. Thanks for the inputs and advises. Regards, Venkata B N Fujitsu Australia
