Simon Riggs wrote: > You've been perfectly happy for *years* with the situation that recovery > would fail if max_prepared_transactions was not correctly. You're not > going to tell me you never noticed? Why is avoidance of obvious > misconfiguration of HS such a heavy priority when nothing else ever was?
That's not a priority, and I never said it was. It almost sounds like we're in a violant agreement: this issue of flipping wal_standby_info in the master has nothing to do with the removal of the capability to start standby from a shutdown checkpoint. So what *was* the reason? Was there something wrong with it? If not, please put it back. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
