On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > Well, yes. But then to stop that you could just lock users out using
> > pg_hba.conf, no? It just doesn't seem to be buying all that much to me.
>
> The main reason to turn it off is to disable a whole lot of very p
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
Well, yes. But then to stop that you could just lock users out using
pg_hba.conf, no? It just doesn't seem to be buying all that much to me.
The main reason to turn it off is to disable a whole lot of very poorly
tested code, and thereby impro
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Well, yes. But then to stop that you could just lock users out using
> pg_hba.conf, no? It just doesn't seem to be buying all that much to me.
The main reason to turn it off is to disable a whole lot of very poorly
tested code, and thereby improve the reliability of you
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>> The docs don't seem to contain any discussion I could find on why one
>>> might
>>> not want hot_standby on. Maybe it's just too obvious to most people, but
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
The docs don't seem to contain any discussion I could find on why one might
not want hot_standby on. Maybe it's just too obvious to most people, but
this seems to be a bit lacking in the docs.
Well, if you don't
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> The docs don't seem to contain any discussion I could find on why one might
> not want hot_standby on. Maybe it's just too obvious to most people, but
> this seems to be a bit lacking in the docs.
Well, if you don't want your slave to proce
The docs don't seem to contain any discussion I could find on why one
might not want hot_standby on. Maybe it's just too obvious to most
people, but this seems to be a bit lacking in the docs.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make change
