Re: recovery consistent != hot standby

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY

+1.  From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state
transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a
later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work)
is not relevant.  What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in
hot-standby backends.  So the current naming overspecifies the
meaning of the state and the transition event.
        regards, tom lane