On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 10:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 12:17 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> * wal_level doesn't describe what the impacts are on a standby if the > > >> level is changed on the primary, nor is there a caution or a warning of > > >> any kind. For example, if a standby is setup with hot_standby = on and > > >> the primary is set wal_level = archive, does the standby start working > > >> if the primary changes wal_level = hot_standby? What happens if the > > >> primary is set wal_level = hot_standby and is then changed to archive? > > > > Hmm, feels like it should rather be documented in the hot_standby > > setting, it affects the standby not the master after all. > > Danger of action at a distance. The change is on the master, but the > effect is on the standby. The person changing the master must be warned > of the danger that they will bring down the standby, so it must go with > the parameter, not only with the HS docs.
Don't really understand why you left that bit out. Are you just leaving this for me, or is there a specific objection to adding the warning? -- 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
