Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-04-23T19:18:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> we have a consensus behind changing it, which it's starting to >> sound like we do. > > I think you misread the +1s from Masao and myself. > > 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. I didn't, but Heikki, Kevin and Tom seem to be on the other side, so we at least have to consider where to go with it. We're going to need a bunch of GUCs any way we slice it. The issue is whether there's a way to slice it that involves fewer AND and OR operators that have to be understood by users. I'm still unconvinced of our ability to come up with a solid design in the time we have, but I think it would make sense to listen to proposals people want to make. I poked some holes in Heikki's design from this morning (which was, more or less, my design from last week) but that doesn't mean they can't be plugged. ...Robert