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

Re: New trigger option of pg_standby

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Date: 2009-03-25 13:59:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>> Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote: 
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> Yeah, I agree... but there may be scripts for warm-standby based on
>> the existing default behavior. So, I didn't make a new trigger the
> I don't use pg_standby personnaly but I admit I'm quite surprised by
> the current behaviour. I'm pretty sure a lot of the current users
> would be surprised too.
I find it hard to imagine a use case for the existing default

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-25 14:02:43
Subject: Re: Unsupported effective_io_concurrency platforms
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2009-03-25 13:35:32
Subject: Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group