On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot > standby, then pause".
I don't like that one much. > I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound > reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to > make it user-configurable, though. I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way - just ignore the pause request and enter normal running. However, I don't have a super-strong feeling that that's the only sensible way to go, so count me as +0.5 for that approach. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
