Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-02-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:09 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: Could also be something like allow_connections_during_recovery. +1 (should we say continuous recovery?) Rather than a boolean, it seems more useful to specify a parameter that has some additional usefulness, if we are going to have one

[HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would become handy if the unimaginable happens and there's a bug in the hot

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean off? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean off? No, do you? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot standby. It would

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not be what you want. I think we need a GUC to enable/disable hot

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 14:28 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: As the patch stands, there's no way to disable hot standby. The server always opens for read-only connections as soon as it can. That might not

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean off? No, do you? Depends on the setting :-) It is hot_standby=off by default, right? I think having a

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 1/23/09, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean off? No, do you? Depends on the

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Merlin Moncure wrote: Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we should pick something more descriptive. Could also be something like allow_connections_during_recovery. I'd keep the word replication out

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Gregory Stark
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Merlin Moncure wrote: Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we should pick something more descriptive. Could also be something like

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:58 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:05 +, Simon Riggs wrote: I'll add it now, default = on. Did you mean off? No, do you? Depends on the setting

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Merlin Moncure wrote: Is 'hot standby' going to be the official moniker for the feature? (not 'standby replication', or something else?). I wonder if we should pick something more descriptive. Could also be something like

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Depends on the setting :-) It is hot_standby=off by default, right? I think having a double negative disable_hot_standby=off would be awkward. It is on by default. Why would you want it off by default?

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Depends on the setting :-) It is hot_standby=off by default, right? I think having a double negative disable_hot_standby=off would be awkward. It is on by default. Why would you want it off by

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Kevin Grittner
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: It is on by default. Why would you want it off by default? Would it slow down the normal recovery after a crash if I don't have any slaves? And how about during traditional PITR recovery? -Kevin -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
Could also be something like allow_connections_during_recovery. +1 (should we say continuous recovery?) I'd keep the word replication out of this.. +1. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 13:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Depends on the setting :-) It is hot_standby=off by default, right? I think having a double negative disable_hot_standby=off would be awkward.

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 10:35 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: It is on by default. Why would you want it off by default? Would it slow down the normal recovery after a crash if I don't have any slaves? And how

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Kevin Grittner
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: There are considerable benefits to having it turned on during PITR Please read this to see why http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby#Dynamic_Control_of_Recovery Am I reading this right? What I get out of it is that users can connect to the

Re: [HACKERS] Controlling hot standby

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 12:17 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: There are considerable benefits to having it turned on during PITR Please read this to see why http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby#Dynamic_Control_of_Recovery Am I reading