On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> that makes it look like one of the WAL archive transfer trigger
>> files,
>> which does not seem like a great analogy. The pg_standby
>> documentation
>> suggests names like "foo.trigger" for failover triggers, which is a
>> bit
>> better analogy because something external to the database creates the
>> file. What about "recovery.trigger"?
I'm OK with that name.
> Do we want a trigger file to enable recovery, or one to *disable* recovery? Or both?
ISTM that only supporting a trigger file to enable recovery is less confusing.
>> * will seeing these values present in pg_settings confuse anybody?
>
> No. pg_settings already has a couple dozen "developer" parameters which nobody not on this mailing list understands.
Addingthe recovery parameters to it wouldn't confuse anyone further, and would have the advantage of making the
recoveryparameters available by monitoring query on a hot standby.
+1
>> * is there any security hazard from ordinary users being able to see
>> what settings had been used?
>
> primary_conninfo could be a problem, since it's possible to set a password there.
True. I agree that primary_conninfo should be restricted to superuser.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center