Re: New trigger option of pg_standby

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Date: 2009-03-25 13:59:01
Message-ID: 49C9F255.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree... but there may be scripts for warm-standby based on
>> the existing default behavior. So, I didn't make a new trigger the
default.
>
> I don't use pg_standby personnaly but I admit I'm quite surprised by
> the current behaviour. I'm pretty sure a lot of the current users
> would be surprised too.

I find it hard to imagine a use case for the existing default
behavior.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-25 14:02:43 Re: Unsupported effective_io_concurrency platforms
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2009-03-25 13:35:32 Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets