Jim Mercer wrote
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:23:30PM -0500, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>> Henry Korszun <
> henryk302@
> > writes:
>> > I understand what you're saying, but I don't know what's causing the
>> "touch" in the first place. I guess I need to further examine/debug.
>> Thanks for your help.
>
> it may be a semantic difference, but is recovery_mode dependent on the
> existence
> of the trigger file, or the timestamp.
>
> "touch" in the above context could either be the creation of the file,
> or simply updating the timestamp of the file.
>
> i suspect that the recovery is triggered by the mere existence of the
> file,
> while henry might be talking in the 'update timestamp' context.
I'm seriously doubting the timestamp info matters - the timestamp would
almost always be in the past (specifying a future recovery date doesn't make
sense anyway) and no arbitrary age is reasonable to make the file invalid
and would be extremely confusing if one did.
"Touch" is a shorthand for "a file whose mere existence is all that is
necessary" and by convention implies that what is in the file doesn't matter
(since actually touching a non-existent file creates a new empty file).
If the file already existed (not that timeframes are being defined all that
well here) the system would never have been in recovery mode...
Henry's last comment is that it is not known what process is creating the
empty trigger file in the first place - whether that process uses touch or
some other means to create the file is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/no-subject-tp5801536p5801671.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - admin mailing list archive at Nabble.com.