Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwL3u0mUxzOTZMw1ay+JhjWcUvvqTyf2gZW8d2sbSJaow@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?
Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:33:27AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Masahiko Sawada
> > The idea of changing the default value seems good to me but I'm not sure
> > it's good idea to change the default value now under the circumstances where
> > we're focus on stabilization.
> > Also we should update the document as well.
> >
>
> We can consider like this: the OP found a usability problem as a result of PG 10 development, so we will fix it as a stabilization work.
We did work in Postgres 10 to make replication simpler with better
defaults. This would be part of that improvement.
+1. I definitely think we should do it, and 10 would be the time to do it.
The failure scenario is that a standby node will no longer work by default *if* you have changed the master to minimal. But unless you have explicitly dropped that one, it would work.
So I definitely think we should change that.
I wonder if we should also consider changing the standby error message to be a WARNING instead of an ERROR. So that if you try to start up a standby with hot_standby=on but master with wal_level=replica it would turn into a cold standby.
We should change the default independently of that, I think, but it might make sense to do both.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: