| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(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 19:23:05 |
| Message-ID: | 14469.1272050585@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Those confusing things are options and I want them to remain optional,
> not compressed into a potentially too simple model based upon how the
> world looks right now.
What are you arguing is too simple? What *I* think is too simple is
what we have got now, namely a GUC that controls both the availability
of replication connections and the contents of WAL.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-23 19:34:59 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-23 19:18:53 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |