Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2010-04-23 11:54:26
Message-ID: n2w603c8f071004230454l15ee6777zcc3af5da811ac0d8@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok, that brings us back to square one. We could still add the wal_mode
> GUC to explicitly control how much WAL is written (replacing
> recovery_connections in the primary), I think it would still make the
> system easier to explain. But it would add an extra hurdle to enabling
> archiving, you'd have to set wal_mode='archive', archive_mode='on', and
> archive_command. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the
> current situation.

I wasn't either, that's why I gave up. It didn't seem worth doing a
major GUC reorganization on the eve of beta unless there was a clear
win. I think there may be a way to improve this but I don't think
it's we should take the time now to figure out what it is. Let's
revisit it for 9.1, and just improve the error reporting for now.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2010-04-23 12:28:50 Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2010-04-23 11:43:19 Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)