On 01/23/2018 03:19 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/9/18 15:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 12/7/17 19:54, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>> Note this substitution sends a "pg_is_in_recovery()" query to the server
>>>>> each time it's encountered; unless there's something I'm overlooking I
>>>>> think that's the only reliable way to determine current recovery status.
>>>>
>>>> That seems kinda painful.
>>>>
>>>> And what happens in an aborted transaction?
>>>
>>> Yeah. I think we need some from help backend for this. For example, a
>>> parameter status message can be used here. If PostgreSQL moves to the
>>> recovery state or vice versa, PostgreSQL sends the parameter status
>>> message to frontend.
>>
>> I agree a backend status message is the right way to do this.
>>
>> We could perhaps report transaction_read_only, if we don't want to add a
>> new one.
>
> I'm setting this CF item to returned with feedback, since it would
> apparently be a much bigger change than then initial patch.
Yup, agree :)
Thanks for the feedback!
Regards
Ian Barwick
--
Ian Barwick http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services