Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > As a concrete example, there is nothing logically wrong with > driving a hot standby slave from WAL records shipped via old-style > pg_standby. Or how about wanting to turn off recovery_connections > temporarily, but not wanting the archived WAL to be unable to > support HS? As one more concrete example, we are likely to find SR beneficial if it can feed into a warm standby, but only if we can also do traditional WAL file archiving from the same source at the same time. The extra logging for HS would be useless for us in any event. +1 for *not* tying WAL contents to the transport mechanism. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
