[Pgpool-general] We really need a change to the API for calling recovery

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 18:02 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume at lelarge.info>
> Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] We really need a change to the API for calling recovery
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:07:46 +0200
> Message-ID: <1311235666.2018.11.camel at laptop>
> 
> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 16:29 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:27 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> >> > Tatsuo,
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Currently the recovery routine is called on the current master database,
> >> >> > and the parameters passed to it do not include the master database IP
> >> >> > address or hostname.  Given that the way to provision a node with 9.1
> >> >> > replication is via pg_basebackup, which MUST be run on the standby, this
> >> >> > makes writing a recovery script which actually works rather difficult
> >> >> > and unreliable.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > I really think that you need to look at restructuring how the recovery
> >> >> > call for new nodes works.  What I would prefer is to have a script which
> >> >> > is called *on the pgpool server* itself, and not on the master node.
> >> >> > This script would be passed the master address and the standby address;
> >> >> > I don't think it would need any other parameters.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Maybe that is only true for streaming replication. I would think about
> >> >> how to deal with pg_basebackup. BTW, I think the script would need
> >> >> user, password and port number at least.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > If that's impossible for some reason, can we at least pass the master
> >> >> > address to the recovery script?  Working without it is unnecessarily
> >> >> > difficult.
> >> >> 
> >> >> That would be easy. I would do it for 3.1.
> >> > 
> >> > I thought the idea was to work on 9.1 for 3.2. Anyway, if we keep adding
> >> > things to 3.1, it will never be released.
> >> 
> >> I've been waiting for French, Germany translations are coming. I hoped
> >> these are included in 3.1.
> > 
> > On the french one, Jean-Paul is currently on holidays. He'll come back
> > next week. Anyways, I know he had made progress in the translation, but,
> > unless he worked on it during his holidays, it'll surely take more time
> > to have a full translation. And when I say more time, I mean a few
> > months.
> > 
> > And AFAICT, last mail from Markus was sent in March. He said he had done
> > 25% of the translatio, and expected to finish in April. No news since.
> > 
> > So, I wouldn't wait for any of those translations to complete 3.1. And
> > translations may be added later.
> 
> Ok. For localized documentations, we will wait till beta. If those
> translations are not done, they will be added after 3.1.
> 
> In addition to this, there are volunteers who want to translate to
> Simplified Chinese. It seems tutorial-en.html is almost translated. So
> we may be able to add to 3.1.
> 

I've seen that. They did a great (and quick) job. Really cool.

> BTW, Jehan-Guillaume said:
> 
> > I needed to refactor pcp_proc_info to add pcp_proc_info and
> > pcp_pric_count to pgpool_adm.
> >
> > But I think I'll need to refactor pcp_node_info as well if I want to
> > add pcp_node_count in the same way.
> 
> So it seems we are waiting for him to refactor pcp_node_info.

Yes. He's doing a training right now, so I guess you won't heard from
him until next week.


-- 
Guillaume
  http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
  http://www.dalibo.com