Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-04-23T12:28:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Ok, that brings us back to square one. We could still add the wal_mode >> GUC to explicitly control how much WAL is written (replacing >> recovery_connections in the primary), I think it would still make the >> system easier to explain. But it would add an extra hurdle to enabling >> archiving, you'd have to set wal_mode='archive', archive_mode='on', and >> archive_command. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the >> current situation. > > I wasn't either, that's why I gave up. It didn't seem worth doing a > major GUC reorganization on the eve of beta unless there was a clear > win. I think there may be a way to improve this but I don't think > it's we should take the time now to figure out what it is. Let's > revisit it for 9.1, and just improve the error reporting for now. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center