On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:37 -0500, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > * Fujii Masao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081211 05:25]: > > > - standalone > > The primary doesn't archive the WAL only during replication. If > replication is > > not in progress, the primary archives the WAL. That is, the > primary switches > > the modes whenever replication starts / ends.
> But I'm sure as hell *not* going to throw all my eggs into that > slave's > basket and do away with my WAL archive... Would anyone actually use > that "standby" mode, and if not, why compilcate the code for it? Sending data twice is not a requirement I ever heard expressed, nor has the lack of ability to send it twice been voiced as a criticism for any form of replication I'm familiar with. Ask the DRBD guys if sending data twice is necessary or required to make replication work. If multiple people think its a good idea then I respect your choice of option. But I also think that many or perhaps most people will choose not to send data twice and I respect that choice of option also. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
