On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Ron Mayer<rm...@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, so it is "warm slave". > > Why isn't it just a "read only slave". Do some systems > have read-only slave databases that can't serve as a warm > standby system as well as this one could?
I think that's about right. What we have now via pg_standby or similar tools is a warm standby. What this tool does is makes the warm-standby also serve as a read-only slave. It doesn't make failover any simpler so it's not making the standby any hotter - it instead makes the standby be able to do more useful work when no failover has occurred. The technical description for the commit message is probably something like this: "Allow read-only queries to be processed during archive recovery." The P/R version is probably something like this: "Warm standby servers now function as read-only slaves." ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
