Robert Haas wrote: > Furthermore, if you're wanting to use pg_standby, you might be > forgiven for thinking that you should set standby_mode = on; but in > fact that's exactly the wrong thing to do.
Yeah, I think that's the main weakness of the name "standby_mode". It's pretty descriptive otherwise, we call that mode of operation "standby" everywhere, and always have. I'm not sure I dare to say this out loud after Simon's previous outburst, but removing or renaming pg_standby would help with that... > One possibility that occurs to me is that we could call it something > like integrated_standby; but I'm not attached to that. Anything with the word 'standby' in it suffers from the same problem, maybe not as badly but still. -- 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
