Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-04-23T19:23:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Those confusing things are options and I want them to remain optional,
> not compressed into a potentially too simple model based upon how the
> world looks right now.

What are you arguing is too simple?  What *I* think is too simple is
what we have got now, namely a GUC that controls both the availability
of replication connections and the contents of WAL.

			regards, tom lane