Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We realized some time ago that it was a good idea to separate
>> archive_mode (what to put in WAL) from archive_command (whether we are
>> actually archiving right now). If we fail to apply that same principle
>> to Hot Standby, I think we'll come to regret it.
> The recovery_connections GUC does that. If you enable it, the extra
> information required for hot standby is written to the WAL, otherwise
> it's not.
No, driving it off recovery_connections is exactly NOT that. It's
confusing the transport mechanism with the desired WAL contents.
I maintain that this design is exactly isomorphic to our original PITR
GUC design wherein what got written to WAL was determined by the current
state of archive_command. We eventually realized that was a bad idea.
So is this.
As a concrete example, there is nothing logically wrong with driving
a hot standby slave from WAL records shipped via old-style pg_standby.
Or how about wanting to turn off recovery_connections temporarily, but
not wanting the archived WAL to be unable to support HS?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
