On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
