Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
| От | Guillaume Smet | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1d4e0c10904130321i14906f08g1d8863dfe0b6ff7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. the trigger file containing "smart" is created. > 2. pg_standby is executed. > 2-1. nextWALfile is restored. > 2-2. the trigger file is deleted because nextWALfile+1 doesn't exist. > 3. the restored nextWALfile is applied. > 4. pg_standby is executed again to restore nextWALfile+1. I don't think it should happen. IMHO, it's an acceptable compromise to replay all the WAL files present when I created the trigger file. So if I have the smart shutdown trigger file and I don't have any nextWALfile+1, I can remove the trigger file and stop the recovery: pg_standby won't be executed again after that, even if a nextWALfile+1 appeared while replaying the previous WAL file. That said, stupid question: do we have a way to know the nextWALfile+1 name to test if it exists? nextWALfile is transmitted through the restore_command API and I'm wondering if we can have nextWALfile+1 name without changing the restore_command API. -- Guillaume
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: