Re: The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()
Date: 2014-03-05 03:07:30
Message-ID: CA+HiwqEb3CMHPc+u8tQvYD8uBsqU55vN4G6FUhag38XcKwYomA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> xlog.c:6177
> if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not
>
> So we have to start and stop standby server with changed
> wal_level(i.g., hot_standby) if we want to enable hot standby.
> In this case, I think that the standby server didn't need to confirm
> wal_level value of ControlFile.
> I think that it should confirm value which is written in postgreql.conf.
>

I think checking it from the control file on a standby in recovery
means that we should confirm if the *wal_level with which the WAL was
generated* is sufficient to now become a hot standby after recovery
finishes.

--
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2014-03-05 05:55:11 API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-03-05 03:02:23 Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views