On 12/05/10 22:23, Robert Haas wrote:
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?
Yes, I think it does. I'll change it tomorrow, barring objections or
someone else changing it first.
--
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
