On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 01:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 22:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> I propose we just accept that both max_connections and > >>> max_prepared_transactions need to be set correctly for recovery to work. > >>> This will make the state transitions more robust and it will avoid > >>> spurious and hard to test error messages. > >>> Any objections to me removing this slice of code from the patch? > > >> Umm, what slice of code? I don't recall any code trying to make it work. > > > Well, its there. > > Just to be clear: you're proposing requiring that these be set the > same on master and slave?
Yes, or more precisely: Slave value >= Master value > I don't have a problem with that, but > I do suggest that we must provide a mechanism to check it --- I don't > want DBAs to be faced with obscure failures when (not if) they > mess it up. Perhaps include the values in checkpoint WAL records? Good plan. We can generate an immediate message at startup. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
