Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2012-12-05 16:15:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's fine, but the immediate question is what are we doing to fix
>> the back branches. I think everyone is clear that we should be testing
>> LocalHotStandbyActive rather than precursor conditions to see if a pause
>> is allowed, but are we going to do anything more than that?
> I'd like to have inclusive/non-inclusive stops some resemblance of
> sanity.
> Raw patch including your earlier LocalHotStandbyActive one attached.
I looked at this but couldn't get excited about using it. There were
some obvious bugs ("if (!recoveryStopsHere)"?) but the real problem is
that I think we're going to end up reworking the interaction between
recoveryPausesHere and the recoveryStopsHere stanza quite a bit.
In particular, we should expect that we're going to need to respond
to a changed recovery target after any pause. So placing a call of
recoveryPausesHere down at the loop bottom where the action is already
predetermined seems like the wrong thing. I'm not entirely sure what
a clean design would look like, but that's not it. I'll leave it to
Simon to think about what we want to do there next.
regards, tom lane