Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54B67268.2090200@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/01/15 14:24, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> I have previously argued for a different approach: Ready recovery.conf >> as a configuration file after postgresql.conf, but keep it as a file to >> start recovery. That doesn't break any old workflows, it gets you all >> the advantages of having recovery parameters in the GUC system, and it >> keeps all the options open for improving things further in the future. > > But this is confusing, too, because it means that if you set a > parameter in both postgresql.conf and recovery.conf, you'll end up > with the recovery.conf value of the parameter even after recovery is > done. Until you restart, and then you won't. That's weird. > > I think your idea of adding read-only GUCs with the same names as all > of the recovey.conf parameters is a clear win. Even if we do nothing > more than that, it makes the values visible from the SQL level, and > that's good. But I think we should go further and make them really be > GUCs. Otherwise, if you want to be able to change one of those > parameters other than at server startup time, you've got to invent a > separate system for reloading them on SIGHUP. If you make them part > of the GUC mechanism, you can use that. I think it's quite safe to > say that the whole reason we *have* a GUC mechanism is so that all of > our configuration can be done through one grand, unified mechanism > rather than being fragmented across many files. This is basically what the patch which is in commitfest does no? > > Some renaming might be in order. Heikki previously suggested merging > all of the recovery_target_whatever settings down into a single > parameter recovery_target='kindofrecoverytarget furtherdetailsgohere', > like recovery_target='xid 1234' or recovery_target='name bob'. Maybe > that would be more clear (or not). I was thinking about this a lot myself while reviewing the patch too, seems strange to have multiple config parameters for what is essentially same thing, my thinking was similar except I'd use ":" as separator ('kindofrecoverytarget:furtherdetailsgohere'). I think though while it is technically nicer to do this, it might hurt usability for users. > Maybe standby_mode needs a better name. I actually think standby_mode should be merged with hot_standby (as in standby_mode = 'hot'/'warm'/'off' or something). > But I think the starting point for this discussion shouldn't be > "why in the world would we merge recovery.conf into postgresql.conf?" > but "why, when we've otherwise gone to such trouble to push all of our > configuration through a single, unified mechanism that offers many > convenient features, do we continue to suffer our recovery.conf > settings to go through some other, less-capable mechanism?". > +1 -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Следующее
От: Merlin MoncureДата:
Сообщение: Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop