Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYX0GeetqHm-CC7m3xt7thbPZRfxTjhXo-NFMe2+vcHGQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> First, if we're going to change behavior, I assert that we should stop >> calling stuff "recovery" and either call it "replica" or "standby". Our >> use of the word "recovery" confuses users; it is historical in nature >> and requires an understanding of PostgreSQL internals to know why it's >> called that. It's also inconsistent with our use of the word "standby" >> everywhere else. > > Are we all talking about the same thing? In my mind recovery.conf is > for configuring a point-in-time archive recovery run. It's got nothing > to do with either replication or standbys. Huh? How else can you create a standby? I do it by creating a recovery.conf file that says: standby_mode=on primary_conninfo='whatever' I wasn't aware that there is another method. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: