Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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