| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Samrat Revagade <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
| Date: | 2013-10-24 14:31:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20131024143150.GE6832@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
> Yeah, I had brought up similar idea up thread. Right now wal_level is
> nicely ordered. But with this additional logic, I am not sure if we would
> need multiple new levels and also break that ordering (I don't know if its
> important). For example, one may want to set up streaming replication
> with/without this feature or hot standby with/without the feature. I don't
> have a good idea about how to capture them in wal_level. May be something
> like: minimal, archive, archive_with_this_new_feature, hot_standby and
> hot_standby_with_this_new_feature.
That's confusing. A separate GUC sounds better.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-24 14:54:32 | Re: Add min and max execute statement time in pg_stat_statement |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-24 14:19:27 | Re: proposal: lob conversion functionality |