[ClusterLabs] Fwd: Postgres pacemaker cluster failure
kgaillot at redhat.com
Wed May 15 17:53:48 EDT 2019
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:50 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:59:49 +0300
> Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 29.04.2019 18:05, Ken Gaillot пишет:
> > > >
> > > > > Why does not it check OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify?
> > > >
> > > > I was just not aware of this env variable. Sadly, it is not
> > > > documented
> > > > anywhere :(
> > >
> > > It's not a Pacemaker-created value like the other notify
> > > variables --
> > > all user-specified meta-attributes are passed that way. We do
> > > need to
> > > document that.
> > OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify is passed also when "notify" meta-
> > attribute
> > is *not* specified, as well as a couple of others. But not all
Hopefully in that case it's passed as false? I vaguely remember some
case where clone attributes were mistakenly passed to non-clone
resources, but I think notify is always accurate for clone resources.
> > possible
> > attributes. And some OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_* variables that are
> > passed do
> > not correspond to any user settable and documented meta-attribute,
> > like
> > OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_clone.
> Sorry guys, now I am confused.
A well-known side effect of pacemaker ;)
> Is it safe or not to use OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_notify? You both doesn't
> seem to
> agree where it comes from. Is it only a non expected side effect or
> is it safe
> and stable code path in Pacemaker we can rely on?
It's reliable. All user-specified meta-attributes end up as environment
variables -- it's just meta-attributes that *aren't* specified by the
user that may or may not show up (but hopefully with the correct
> Does it worth a patch in pgsqlms RA?
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>
More information about the Users