On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 14:56 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > So we're proposing adding parameters to simplify things for users? > > I think it's a matter of having parameters which do simple, clear > things; rather than magically interacting to guess what the user > wants. What do you want to log? How many connections to you want > to allow for streaming it? What's your script for sending it in > archive file format? Is archiving turned on at the moment? Let's > have GUC for each question, rather than having to work backwards > from what you want to which combination of GUC settings gets you to > that, or at least as close as the magic interpretation allows.
I've just committed a change to make Hot Standby depend only upon the setting "recovery_connections = on" on the master. That makes it clear that there is one lever, not lots of confusing ones. That might forestall further changes, because the correct way of doing this was already as simple as people wanted it to be. The previous requirement was actually a bug: the method of WAL delivery has nothing at all to do with Hot Standby (currently). Not intended to stop further debate, if people wish. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
