Hi, Sorry for the delay.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> but before we go to DB_IN_PRODUCTION? > > I think it can be either, so I'll go with your proposal. I also think so. > (I'm aware Fujii-san is asleep right now, so we should expect another > viewpoint before tomorrow). I'd like to avoid adding new parameter for warm-standby if possible because currently the setup of it is already complicated. But, I don't have another good idea yet other than the already proposed. Sorry. Personally, I'd rather make pg_standby delete a trigger file when the timeline history file is requested even if this would break the current behavior, than the setup of warm-standby becomes more complicated. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
