Hi, > > Went looking for this in the docs... > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-WAL-LEVEL > > > > So I guess, no-restore/offline/online would be good names (and maybe > > wal_restore_mode instead of wal_level) if we started from scratch. Note > > that no-restore does not preclude same-system recovery. > > > > Just something to help me remember... > > > > David J. > > Slightly tangential but are the locking operations associated with the > recent bugfix generated in both (all?) modes or only hot_standby? I thought > it strange that transient locking operations were output with WAL though I > get it if they are there to support read-only queries.
Putting aside the naming:), I have caught by the discussion about the differences of wal records to be emitted among the wal levels. I grep'ed 'wal_level' for whole backend but all it showed was for checking of some options in postgresql.conf against other options in postgresql.conf and that in control file. None of them seems to care it for the purpose of controlling how/what wal records to emit or record construction, except for WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL. As far as I could see, I doubt that there is any difference in emitted wal records amoung wal levels, (except for logical changeset). I came to want to try to run streaming replication with wal_level = minimal but no time for now:( regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi 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
