What is "hot" and "standby" about the proposed "hot standby" feature?
The way I understand these terms in a replication/cluster scenario are: cold - If the first node dies, you need to start the replacement node from a standing start. warm - If the first node dies, the replacement node needs to do some work to get ready, but it's a lot quicker than "cold". hot - If the first node dies, the replacement node can take over immediately. standby - While the master node is running, the standby node instance cannot be used for anything (useful). slave - While the master node is running, the slave node can be used in limited capacity (typically read-only). master - Both/all nodes have equivalent capabilities all the time while the cluster is up. For example, I'd say that a DRBD-based solution would be a cold standby. Among WAL-based solutions, what we have now with pg_standby (nomen est omen), is a warmish standby. From what I understand, Simon's patch set does not change the "warm" property of this arrangement at all. It only changes the "standby" to a "slave". Am I off? What other definition of terms justifies the description of "hot standby"? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
