Re: Hot Standby, max_connections and max_prepared_transactions

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 22:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I propose we just accept that both max_connections and
>>> max_prepared_transactions need to be set correctly for recovery to work.
>>> This will make the state transitions more robust and it will avoid
>>> spurious and hard to test error messages.
>>> Any objections to me removing this slice of code from the patch?

>> Umm, what slice of code? I don't recall any code trying to make it work.

> Well, its there.

Just to be clear: you're proposing requiring that these be set the
same on master and slave? I don't have a problem with that, but
I do suggest that we must provide a mechanism to check it --- I don't
want DBAs to be faced with obscure failures when (not if) they
mess it up. Perhaps include the values in checkpoint WAL records?

regards, tom lane