Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I still don't believe that claim, and I think it's complete folly
>> to set the assumption in stone by choosing a user-visible GUC API that
>> depends on it being true.
> Huh? We're clearly talking about two different things here, because
> that doesn't make any sense. Archiving and streaming replication are
> just two means of transporting WAL records from point A to point B.
Sorry, not enough caffeine. What I should have said was that Hot
Standby could put stronger requirements on what gets put into WAL than
archiving for recovery does. Heikki's proposal upthread was
wal_mode='standby' versus wal_mode='archive' (versus 'off'), which
seemed sensible to me.
We realized some time ago that it was a good idea to separate
archive_mode (what to put in WAL) from archive_command (whether we are
actually archiving right now). If we fail to apply that same principle
to Hot Standby, I think we'll come to regret it.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ross J. Reedstrom||Date: 2010-04-23 18:11:32|
|Subject: Re: psql: Add setting to make '+' on \d implicit|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-23 17:45:10|
|Subject: Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)|