| From: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Date: | 2009-03-26 07:32:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10903260032v767da1fdg6cf7cea86c64cc45@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What does "the default" mean? You mean that new trigger should use
> the existing trigger option character (-t)?
Yes, that's my point.
I understand it seems weird to switch the options but I'm pretty sure
a lot of persons currently using -t would be surprised by the current
behaviour. Moreover playing all the remaining WALs before starting up
should be the most natural option when people are looking in the help.
That said, it would be nice to hear from people really using
pg_standby to know if they understand how it works now and if it's
what they intended when they set it up.
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | higepon | 2009-03-26 07:39:41 | Re: pg_dump Add dumping of comments on index columns |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-03-26 06:24:36 | Re: shut down pgsql-interfaces (was Re: [HACKERS] Function C and INOUT parameters) |