On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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()?
Bad idea, I think. If XLogIsNeeded() is returning false and XLogStandbyInfoActive() is returning true, the resulting WAL will still be unusable for HS, at least AIUI. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
