Simon Riggs wrote: > 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?
Sorry, I just didn't have the time & energy to figure out what to do about that. Feel free to fix as you see fit. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers