On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > How about something like > > > wal_additional_info = none | archive | connect > > "connect" seems like a completely inappropriate word here. It is > not obviously related to HS slaves and it could be taken to refer > to ordinary database connections (sessions). > > Personally I agree with your objection to "crash" but not with the > objection to "standby". Maybe this would be appropriate: > > wal_mode = minimal | archive | hot_standby
Sounds good, I'll go for that. In my understanding this means that archive_mode does completely and the max_wal_senders does not affect WAL contents? Does that mean that wal_mode can be SIGHUP now? It would be good. I think this is how to do that: At the start of every WAL-avoiding operation we could take a copy of wal_mode for the server and store in MyProc->wal_mode. At transaction start we would set that to "not set". We could then make pg_start_backup() wait for all transactions with wal_mode set to complete before we continue. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
