Re: Hot standby, recovery procs

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Date: 2009-02-26 10:19:41
Message-ID: 49A66CBD.70803@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>>> You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.
>> Simplicity.
>
> You used that argument in January to explain why the coupling should be
> reduced and now the same argument to put it back again.

That was in reference to the slot ids, I'm not suggesting to put that
back. If anything, removing the need for the the xl_topxid field in WAL
record will further reduce the coupling between master and standby.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-02-26 10:32:49 Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-02-26 10:16:17 Re: Hot standby, recovery procs