On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>> I was also worried about the non-hot-standby case, but I see that the
>>>> patch makes sure you can't enable pause when not in hot standby mode.
>>>> Which in itself might be surprising - perhaps we need a NOTICE for
>>>> when that happens as well?
>>>
>>> I didn't include this fix in the patch because I prefer FATAL to
>>> NOTICE for that.
>>> NOTICE doesn't stop recovery. So we might be unable to notice such a NOTICE
>>> message and stop the recovery before it's too late, i.e., the recovery has
>>> completed at the undesirable point. So I think that emitting FATAL is safer.
>>
>> I included this fix in the patch, which emits FATAL if pause_at_recovery_target
>> is enabled while hot standby is disabled and the recovery target is set.
>
> Eh, this is problematic, because you can't claim in the documentation
> (and the comments in recovery.conf.sample) that the parameter has no
> effect when Hot Standby is not enabled, and then at the same time make
> that combination a FATAL error. I don't have a strong opinion on
> whether to change the docs or make it not FATAL, but the two have to
> match.
Yeah, since I like the former, I changed the wordings in the doc and
recovery.conf.sample. What about the attached patch?
> Committing the rest.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center