Re: Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs
Date: 2011-07-07 20:06:41
Message-ID: 28031.1310069201@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2011-07-07 at 13:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, so the plan is to move these settings into a separate top-level
>> group "Replication", and sub-divide into master and standby settings,

> Most of the messages use the term "primary" rather than "master". I
> think there was a discussion in 9.0 in favor of that term.

Well, there seems to be a lot more usage of the term "master" than
the other in the docs ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-07-07 20:09:49 Re: spurious use of %m format in pg_upgrade
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-07-07 19:58:49 excessive backpatching of gitignore files