Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I still don't believe that claim, and I think it's complete folly
>> to set the assumption in stone by choosing a user-visible GUC API that
>> depends on it being true.
> Huh? We're clearly talking about two different things here, because
> that doesn't make any sense. Archiving and streaming replication are
> just two means of transporting WAL records from point A to point B.
Sorry, not enough caffeine. What I should have said was that Hot
Standby could put stronger requirements on what gets put into WAL than
archiving for recovery does. Heikki's proposal upthread was
wal_mode='standby' versus wal_mode='archive' (versus 'off'), which
seemed sensible to me.
We realized some time ago that it was a good idea to separate
archive_mode (what to put in WAL) from archive_command (whether we are
actually archiving right now). If we fail to apply that same principle
to Hot Standby, I think we'll come to regret it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
