Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 18:40 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> It's error-prone to control what happens in the standby from the master. >> That's the "action at a distance" effect I mentioned earlier. The master >> should be configured in the master, and each standby should configured >> in the standby. > > Repeating the same thing when its been refuted doesn't help. What you > say has not been proposed.
I was responding to your mail where you said that there is two settings for turning hot standby off, and asking why we need two. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't think of wal_level as a setting to turn hot standby on or off. It would be error-prone to control that from the master. So there is only one setting to turn hot standby on/off, recovery_connections in the standby. > If there is a case for HS-off-by-default, make it. If you want to change > code, arguing directly against your own position, mentioned many times, > we need a reason. How else can we know which argument of yours to > believe? Now you lost me. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
