On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > 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...
Not really. People aren't going to forget about it just because we remove it from CVS HEAD. >> 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. Well, let's come up with something else then. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
