On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's no connection at all between what the GUC state
> was at shutdown and what it might be after starting again.
> A design that might work is
> (1) store the active value of wal_mode in pg_control (but NOT as part of
> the last-checkpoint-record image).
> (2) invent a new WAL record type that is transmitted when we change
> Then, slaves could check whether the master's wal_mode is high enough
> by looking at pg_control when they start plus any wal_mode_change
> records they come across.
Seems OK on standby side. On the primary there are some other points,
mentioned on other thread as to when we can change wal_mode.
> If we did this then we could get rid of those WAL record types that were
> added to signify that information had been omitted from WAL at specific
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Steve Atkins||Date: 2010-04-23 21:34:45|
|Subject: Re: psql: Add setting to make '+' on \d implicit |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-23 21:29:09|
|Subject: Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-04-23 22:23:39|
|Subject: pgsql: Add missing optimizer hooks for function cost and number of rows.|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-23 21:27:21|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct|