On 10/24/2013 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 24.10.2013 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 10/24/2013 04:15 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: >>> If we do what you are suggesting, it seems like a single line patch >>> to me. >>> In XLogSaveBufferForHint(), we probably need to look at this >>> additional GUC >>> to decide whether or not to backup the block. >> >> Wait, what? Why are we having an additional GUC? >> >> I'm opposed to the idea of having a GUC to enable failback. When would >> anyone using replication ever want to disable that? > > For example, if you're not replicating for high availability purposes, > but to keep a reporting standby up-to-date.
What kind of overhead are we talking about here? You probably said, but I've had a mail client meltdown and lost a lot of my -hackers emails. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
