Simon Riggs wrote: > > Recent changes to parameters aren't yet sufficiently well documented and > I'd like to see this improved by the authors of those patches. I accept > the behaviour changes, but we need full docs to explain them. > > * hot_standby doesn't mention that wal_level = hot_standby is also > required, nor is there a xref. > > * wal_level = 'hot_standby' doesn't mention that the second parameter > also needs to be set, nor is there a xref. > > * wal_level doesn't describe what the impacts are on a standby if the > level is changed on the primary, nor is there a caution or a warning of > any kind. For example, if a standby is setup with hot_standby = on and > the primary is set wal_level = archive, does the standby start working > if the primary changes wal_level = hot_standby? What happens if the > primary is set wal_level = hot_standby and is then changed to archive? > > * wal_level doesn't explicitly describe that the levels are in sequence > and that hot_standby is a superset of archive. The comment "so at least > archive level must be used to enable .... streaming replication." can be > misinterpreted to mean that hot_standby level cannot be used with SR, > unless the "at least archive level" is successfully interpreted with the > understanding that minimal < archive < hot_standby. So would like to see > that made explicit.
I totally agree. Also, there is the new requirement to set wal_level for PITR, which is not documented as a necessary setup step yet. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://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