| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2011-09-20 19:57:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4E78F041.6070404@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The point I'm trying to make is that it seems like this discussion is
> getting driven entirely by the standby case, without remembering that
> recovery.conf was originally designed for, and is still used in,
> a significantly different use-case. Maybe we had better take two
> steps back and think about the implications for the archive-recovery
> case.
I think we should take that into consideration, sure. But it should not
be in the driver's seat for things like nomenclature. Far more people
use replication than use PITR.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-20 20:38:52 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-20 19:47:15 | Re: heap_update temporary release of buffer lock |