From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Date: | 2011-09-20 17:40:11 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYX0GeetqHm-CC7m3xt7thbPZRfxTjhXo-NFMe2+vcHGQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> First, if we're going to change behavior, I assert that we should stop
>> calling stuff "recovery" and either call it "replica" or "standby". Our
>> use of the word "recovery" confuses users; it is historical in nature
>> and requires an understanding of PostgreSQL internals to know why it's
>> called that. It's also inconsistent with our use of the word "standby"
>> everywhere else.
>
> Are we all talking about the same thing? In my mind recovery.conf is
> for configuring a point-in-time archive recovery run. It's got nothing
> to do with either replication or standbys.
Huh? How else can you create a standby? I do it by creating a
recovery.conf file that says:
standby_mode=on
primary_conninfo='whatever'
I wasn't aware that there is another method.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-09-20 17:42:30 | heap_update temporary release of buffer lock |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-20 17:30:28 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |