On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I've just realized that one of the confusing things about this debate > is that the recovery_connections parameter is very confusingly named. > It might have been okay when HS existed in isolation, but with SR in the > mix, it's not at all clear that the parameter refers to client > connections made to a standby server, and not to replication connections > made from a standby to its master. It is easy to think that this is a > parameter that needs to be turned on in the master to allow standby > slaves to connect to it. > > Another problem is that it looks more like an integer parameter > (ie, maximum number of such connections) than a boolean. > > I think a different name would help. The best idea I can come up with > on the spur of the moment is "allow_standby_queries", but I'm not sure > that can't be improved on. Comments?
I agree that name is better. It would also be nice if the name of that GUC matched the value that must be set for wal_level as closely as possible. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
