Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication

Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I disagree. If they make it the master they change the setting.
>
> It's not acceptable to force people to edit a configuration file when
> failover occurs. Some people wish to automate this and fumbling
> parameter values at this important time is definitely inappropriate. We
> gain nothing by asking people do do things that way.
>
> Plus, as I have said: if it is controlled on the Standby then it will
> not be transaction-controlled and this will be a useful thing.
>
> I asked myself "where would I like to be set?" The answer was "on the
> master". If you think differently, please say why. Yes, we can set it on
> the standby, but I see no reason to do so.

Ah, I can see an advantage for the failover case to have the slave wal
sync controlled from the master. My original goal was just to reduce
GUC option bloat. Let's get farther down the road on this and see how
it looks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +