Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Thinking about it some more ... what we actually need to prevent, AFAICS,
>> is standby_mode becoming true in a standalone backend.
> I have spent some time playing with that and you are right. Only
> standby_mode = on is able trigger a failure here, and the first one is
> in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable(). I'd just put the check at the end of
> readRecoveryCommandFile(), this will avoid extra thinking should
> readRecoveryCommandFile() be moved around. That's unlikely to happen
> but it is a cheap insurance.
Pushed with minor adjustments --- I moved the check to be closer to
existing sanity checks in readRecoveryCommandFile, tweaked the wording
(the man page for postgres refers to --single as "single-user server"
mode) and added an errcode.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
