Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3f0b79eb0903251851v5936d6b4x49997ac8f04b98b9@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby (Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kevin Grittner > <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> I find it hard to imagine a use case for the existing default >> behavior. > > I thought a bit about it and I think it can be useful when your > priority is the availability of the service and you don't consider a > data loss that important: even if you have a lot of WALs segments to > replay, you may want to have your service up immediately in case of a > major problem. Yes, I also think that this is likely use case. > Keeping it is a good idea IMHO but I don't think it should be the default. What does "the default" mean? You mean that new trigger should use the existing trigger option character (-t)? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: