From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parameter oddness; was HS/SR Assert server crash |
Date: | 2010-05-14 22:34:40 |
Message-ID: | 201005142234.o4EMYec13038@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > One odd thing is we have two paramters that mention hot_standby
> > --- on the master we have to do in postgresql.conf:
> >
> > wal_level = hot_standby
> >
> > and on the slave we do in postgresql.conf:
> >
> > hot_standby = on
> >
> > That is a little confusing.
>
> Why? I read that as saying that the master is writing sufficient
> data into the WAL for it to be usable for hot standby purposes, and
> that that the slave machine is going to be used as a hot standby.
> You'd better do the former if you're going to do the latter, but
> there were good reasons not to try to infer one setting from the
> other.
My point was that the string 'hot_standby' is both a variable and a
setting.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-05-14 22:55:57 | underscore split to alias |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-14 22:22:18 | Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal |