On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > There's no connection at all between what the GUC state > was at shutdown and what it might be after starting again. > > A design that might work is > (1) store the active value of wal_mode in pg_control (but NOT as part of > the last-checkpoint-record image). > (2) invent a new WAL record type that is transmitted when we change > wal_mode. > > Then, slaves could check whether the master's wal_mode is high enough > by looking at pg_control when they start plus any wal_mode_change > records they come across.
Seems OK on standby side. On the primary there are some other points, mentioned on other thread as to when we can change wal_mode. > If we did this then we could get rid of those WAL record types that were > added to signify that information had been omitted from WAL at specific > times. Please. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
