Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Date: 2011-09-09 14:05:08
Message-ID: 10670.1315577108@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get
> rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make
> it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists
> state.

+1.  If it's not a configuration file anymore, it shouldn't be called
one.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-09 14:08:46
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2011-09-09 13:53:45
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group