On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:24 AM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> From: "Fujii Masao" <masao.fu...@gmail.com> >> >>>> However, isn't StandbyRequested true (= standby_mode set to on) to >>>> enable >>>> warm standby? >>> >>> >>> We can set up warm-standby by using pg_standby even if standby_mode = >>> off. >> >> >> I see. However, I understand that pg_standby is a legacy feature, and the >> current way to setup a warm standby is to set standby=on and restore_command >> in recovery.conf. So I think it might not be necessary to support cascading >> replication with pg_standby, if supporting it would prevent better >> implementation of new features. > > You are right about that, you should stick with the core features as much as > you can and limit the use of wrapper utilities. Since 9.1 and the apparition > of a built-in standby mode inside Postgres (with the apparition of the GUC > parameter hot_standby), it seems better to use that instead of pg_standby, > which would likely (personal opinion, feel free to scream at me) be removed > in a future release.
I'm sure that there are some users who use pg_standby for warm-standby for some reasons, for example, the document (*1) explains such a configuration, a user can specify the file-check-interval (by using -s option), and so on. I agree that using pg_standby + cascade replication would be very rare. But I'm not confident that *no one* uses pg_standby + cascade replication. (*1) http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/log-shipping-alternative.html Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
