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

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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 12:28:50
Message-ID: w2k3f0b79eb1004230528y4f3e0457wad4e8dd35624a825@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

+1

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-04-23 15:14:41 Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-04-23 11:54:26 Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)