On 8/18/15 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> How would we handle decreases at run time? We can prevent >=archive -> >> minimal if archiving is running or there are physical replication slots, >> and we can prevent logical -> something less if there are logical >> replication slots, but AFAICT, we don't have a way to check whether >> anyone currently needs level hot_standby. > > What do you mean by "prevent"? If the user edits postgresql.conf and > reduces the setting, and then reloads the configuration file, they > have a right to expect that the changes got applied.
We have certain checks in place that require a minimum wal_level before other things are allowed. For example, turning on archiving requires wal_level >= archive. The issue is then, if you have archiving on and then turn wal_level to minimal at run time, we need to prevent that to preserve the integrity of the original check. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
