| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |
| Date: | 2010-04-26 14:41:03 |
| Message-ID: | n2r603c8f071004260741n874f742dyb913f39ccdfaf7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * How about naming the parameter wal_level instead of wal_mode? That
>>> would better convey that the higher levels add stuff on top of the lower
>>> levels, instead of having different modes that are somehow mutually
>>> exclusive.
>
>> That works for me.
>
> What happens in the future if we have more options and they don't fall
> into a neat superset order?
We'll decide on the appropriate solution based on whatever our needs
are at that time?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-26 14:46:35 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-26 14:23:45 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |