Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Per document, >>> >>> -- >>> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files >>> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-02 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Per document, >> >> -- >> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files >> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all >> transactions in those files are lost. To trigger a fa

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-02 Thread Josh Berkus
> Per document, > > -- > In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files > in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all > transactions in those files are lost. To trigger a fast failover, > create a trigger file and write the word fa

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-02 Thread Fujii Masao
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03/02/2015 11:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> >>> On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 03/02/2015 11:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can set the sleep ti

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-03-02 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >>> pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can >>> set the sleep time, for example, while standby_m

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2015-02-27 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: >> pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can >> set the sleep time, for example, while standby_mode=on uses a hard-coded >> delay of 5 s. And pg_standby ha

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 11/10/2014 07:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> >> On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> >>> >>> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for >>> pg_standby? >> >> >> -1. >> >> A lot of peop

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 11/10/2014 07:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for pg_standby? -1. A lot of people, a lot of customers use log shipping for various creative and business requirement setups.

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for pg_standby? -1. A lot of people, a lot of customers use log shipping for various creative and business requirement setups. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.com

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2014 6:16 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for >> > pg_standby? >> >> -1 for removing it. There i

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Nov 10, 2014 6:16 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for > > pg_standby? > > -1 for removing it. There is still the case where I'd like to use log-shipping > rather than r

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for > pg_standby? -1 for removing it. There is still the case where I'd like to use log-shipping rather than replication. For example, it's the case where I need to compr

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for > pg_standby? Was the original reason to keep it around anything other than backwards compatibility? If not, then it was backwards compatibility with a version that'

Re: [HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-07 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for > pg_standby? +1 for this autumn cleanup. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: ht

[HACKERS] remove pg_standby?

2014-11-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for pg_standby? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers