| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |
| Date: | 2010-04-23 11:54:26 |
| Message-ID: | n2w603c8f071004230454l15ee6777zcc3af5da811ac0d8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok, that brings us back to square one. We could still add the wal_mode
> GUC to explicitly control how much WAL is written (replacing
> recovery_connections in the primary), I think it would still make the
> system easier to explain. But it would add an extra hurdle to enabling
> archiving, you'd have to set wal_mode='archive', archive_mode='on', and
> archive_command. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the
> current situation.
I wasn't either, that's why I gave up. It didn't seem worth doing a
major GUC reorganization on the eve of beta unless there was a clear
win. I think there may be a way to improve this but I don't think
it's we should take the time now to figure out what it is. Let's
revisit it for 9.1, and just improve the error reporting for now.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-23 12:28:50 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-04-23 11:43:19 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |