Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?
Date: 2010-04-29 17:21:36
Message-ID: AANLkTinl7W3Hjo6h7AECPaYYycRww7Wxkw9pkMKqUyNP@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I've just realized that one of the confusing things about this debate
> is that the recovery_connections parameter is very confusingly named.
> It might have been okay when HS existed in isolation, but with SR in the
> mix, it's not at all clear that the parameter refers to client
> connections made to a standby server, and not to replication connections
> made from a standby to its master.  It is easy to think that this is a
> parameter that needs to be turned on in the master to allow standby
> slaves to connect to it.
>
> Another problem is that it looks more like an integer parameter
> (ie, maximum number of such connections) than a boolean.
>
> I think a different name would help.  The best idea I can come up with
> on the spur of the moment is "allow_standby_queries", but I'm not sure
> that can't be improved on.  Comments?

I agree that name is better.  It would also be nice if the name of
that GUC matched the value that must be set for wal_level as closely
as possible.

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-04-29 17:28:55
Subject: Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-29 17:20:03
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group