On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:33:27AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Masahiko > Sawada > > > The idea of changing the default value seems good to me but I'm not > sure > > > it's good idea to change the default value now under the circumstances > where > > > we're focus on stabilization. > > > Also we should update the document as well. > > > > > > > We can consider like this: the OP found a usability problem as a result > of PG 10 development, so we will fix it as a stabilization work. > > We did work in Postgres 10 to make replication simpler with better > defaults. This would be part of that improvement. > +1. I definitely think we should do it, and 10 would be the time to do it. The failure scenario is that a standby node will no longer work by default *if* you have changed the master to minimal. But unless you have explicitly dropped that one, it would work. So I definitely think we should change that. I wonder if we should also consider changing the standby error message to be a WARNING instead of an ERROR. So that if you try to start up a standby with hot_standby=on but master with wal_level=replica it would turn into a cold standby. We should change the default independently of that, I think, but it might make sense to do both. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
