[ClusterLabs] [EXT] Re: PAF / pgSQL fails after OS/system shutdown - FIX

[lejeczek]

On 13/11/2023 13:08, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais via Users 
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 11:39:45 +0000
> "Windl, Ulrich" <u.windl at ukr.de> wrote:
>
>> But shouldn't the RA check for that (and act appropriately)?
> Interesting. I'm open to discuss this. Below my thoughts so far.
>
> Why the RA should check that? There's so many way to setup the system and
> PostgreSQL, where should the RA stop checking for all possible way to break it?
>
> The RA checks various (maybe too many) things related to the instance itself
> already.
>
> I know various other PostgreSQL setups that would trigger errors in the cluster
> if the dba doesn't check everything is correct. I'm really reluctant to
> add add a fair amount of code in the RA to correctly parse and check the
> complex PostgreSQL's setup. This would add complexity and bugs. Or maybe I
> could add a specific OCF_CHECK_LEVEL sysadmins can trigger by hand before
> starting the cluster. But I wonder if it worth the pain, how many people will
> know about this and actually run it?
>
> The problem here is that few users actually realize how the postgresql-common
> wrapper works and what it actually does behind your back. I really appreciate
> this wrapper, I do. But when you setup a Pacemaker cluster, you either have to
> bend to it when setting up PAF (as documented), or avoid it completely.
>
> PAF is all about drawing a clear line between the sysadmin job and the
> dba one. Dba must build a cluster of instances ready to start/replicate with
> standard binaries (not wrappers) before sysadmin can set up the resource in your
> cluster.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
I would be the same/similar mind - which is - adding more 
code to account for more/all _config_ cases may not be the 
healthiest approach, however!!

Just like some code-writers out there in around the globe 
here too, some do seem to _not_ appreciate or seem to 
completely ignore, parts which are meant do alleviate the 
TCO burden of any software - documentation best bits which 
for Unix/Linux... are MAN PAGES.
This is rhetorical but I'll ask - what is a project worth 
when its own man pages miss critical _gotchas_ and similar 
gimmicks.

If you read here are are a prospective/future coder-writer 
for Linux please make such note - your 'man pages" ought to 
be at least!! as good as your code.
many thanks, L.