On 2013-11-20 08:10:44 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-11-19 22:09:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > * I am not sure I like "recovery.trigger" as a name. It seems to close
> >> > to what I've seen people use to trigger failover and too close to
> >> > trigger_file.
> >
> >> This name was chosen and kept in accordance to the spec of this
> >> feature. Looks fine for me...
> >
> > I still think "start_as_standby.trigger" or such would be much clearer
> > and far less likely to be confused with the promotion trigger file.
> >
>
> the function of the file is to inform the server it's in recovery and
> it needs to consider recovery parameters, not to make the server a
> standby. yes, i admit that is half the way to make the server a
> standby. for example, if you are doing PITR and stopping the server
> before some specific point (recovery_target_*) then
> "start_as_standby.trigger" will has no meaning and could confuse
> people
'recovery' includes crash recovery, that's why I quite dislike your
function name since it's not crash recovery you're checking for since
during that we certainly do not want to interpet those parameters.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services