Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?
Date
Msg-id 1331.1493215717@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PostgreSQL 10] default of hot_standby should be "on"?  (Huong Dangminh <huo-dangminh@ys.jp.nec.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> +1. I definitely think we should do it, and 10 would be the time to do it.

Agreed.  It's mainly a historical accident that the default is what it is,
I think.

> 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.

I'm -1 for that: if you fat-finger the configuration, you should be told
about it, not have the system start up in an unintended mode that lacks
critical functionality.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG 10 release notes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly