Pavan Deolasee escribió: > Yeah, I had brought up similar idea up thread. Right now wal_level is > nicely ordered. But with this additional logic, I am not sure if we would > need multiple new levels and also break that ordering (I don't know if its > important). For example, one may want to set up streaming replication > with/without this feature or hot standby with/without the feature. I don't > have a good idea about how to capture them in wal_level. May be something > like: minimal, archive, archive_with_this_new_feature, hot_standby and > hot_standby_with_this_new_feature.
That's confusing. A separate GUC sounds better. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
