On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 17:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> > I will change the error message. >>> >>> I gave a good deal of thought to trying to figure out a cleaner >>> solution to this problem than just changing the error message and >>> failed. So let's change the error message. Of course I'm not quite >>> sure what we should change it TO, given that the situation is the >>> result of an interaction between three different GUCs and we have no >>> way to distinguish which one(s) are the problem. >> >> "You need all three" covers it. > > Actually you need standby_connections and either archive_mode=on or > max_wal_senders>0, I think.
Right. First of all, I wonder why the latter two need to affect the decision of whether additional information is written to WAL for HS. How about just removing XLogIsNeeded() condition from XLogStandbyInfoActive()? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
