On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> If so, master/standby would probably work. > > +1 for master/standby. > > It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively > connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an > archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby" > covers that case too, better than "slave".
So does this mean we should rename primary_conninfo? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
