Bruce,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ah, I now realize it only mentions "warm" standby, not "hot", so I just
> updated the documentation to reflect that; you can see it here:
Maybe the table below also needs an update, because unlike "Warm Standby
using PITR", a hot standby accepts read-only queries and can be
configured to not loose data on master failure.
> Do we want to call the feature "hot standby"? Is a read-only standby a
> "standby" or a "slave"?
I think hot standby is pretty much the term, now.
Regards
Markus Wanner
