Re: Further Hot Standby documentation required - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Further Hot Standby documentation required
Date
Msg-id 1272906207.4161.35011.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Further Hot Standby documentation required  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Further Hot Standby documentation required
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 10:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 12:17 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 
> > >> * wal_level doesn't describe what the impacts are on a standby if the
> > >> level is changed on the primary, nor is there a caution or a warning of
> > >> any kind. For example, if a standby is setup with hot_standby = on and
> > >> the primary is set wal_level = archive, does the standby start working
> > >> if the primary changes wal_level = hot_standby? What happens if the
> > >> primary is set wal_level = hot_standby and is then changed to archive?
> > 
> > Hmm, feels like it should rather be documented in the hot_standby
> > setting, it affects the standby not the master after all. 
> 
> Danger of action at a distance. The change is on the master, but the
> effect is on the standby. The person changing the master must be warned
> of the danger that they will bring down the standby, so it must go with
> the parameter, not only with the HS docs.

Don't really understand why you left that bit out.

Are you just leaving this for me, or is there a specific objection to
adding the warning?

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: missing file in git repo