On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Ahh, good point. I had not considered the table would change. What I
> did was to mark "Slaves accept read-only queries" as "Hot only".
Can the "warm standby" still reside in v9.0? If not, the mark of
"Hot only" seems odd for me.
> I did not change "Master failure will never lose data" because the 9.0
> streaming implementation is not sychronous (see wal_sender_delay in
> postgresql.conf), and I don't think even setting that to zero makes the
> operation synchronous. I think we will have to wait for PG 9.1 for
> _synchronous_ streaming replication.
You are right.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-02-09 01:07:00|
|Subject: buildfarm breakage|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-09 00:35:43|
|Subject: Re: Order of operations in lazy_vacuum_rel |