On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Ok, that brings us back to square one. We could still add the wal_mode > GUC to explicitly control how much WAL is written (replacing > recovery_connections in the primary), I think it would still make the > system easier to explain. But it would add an extra hurdle to enabling > archiving, you'd have to set wal_mode='archive', archive_mode='on', and > archive_command. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the > current situation.
I wasn't either, that's why I gave up. It didn't seem worth doing a major GUC reorganization on the eve of beta unless there was a clear win. I think there may be a way to improve this but I don't think it's we should take the time now to figure out what it is. Let's revisit it for 9.1, and just improve the error reporting for now. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
