On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-08-26 16:41:44 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 8/26/14 12:40 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > I think the first reason is gone now, and the risk/damage of the two >> > connections is probably smaller than running out of WAL. -x is a good >> > default for smaller systems, but -X is a safer one for bigger ones. So >> > I agree that changing the default mode would make sense. >> >> I would seriously consider just removing one of the modes. Having two >> modes is complex enough, and then having different defaults in different >> versions, and fuzzy recommendations like, it's better for "smaller >> systems", it's quite confusing. > > Happy with removing the option and just accepting -X for backward > compat.
Works for me - this is really the cleaner way of doing it... If we do that, perhaps we should backpatch a deprecation notice into the 9.4 docs? >> I don't think it's a fundamental problem to say, you need 2 connections >> to use this feature. (For example, you need a second connection to >> issue a cancel request. Nobody has ever complained about that.) > > Well, replication connections are more limited in number than normal > connections... And cancel requests are very short lived. Yeah. But as long as we document it clearly, we should be OK I think. And it's fairly clearly documented now - just need to be sure not to remove that when changing the -x stuff. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers