On 12/05/10 22:23, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If so, master/standby would probably work.
>>
>> +1 for master/standby.
>>
>> It's worth remembering that a "standby server" might not be actively
>> connected to a master server. A server that's reading WAL from an
>> archive backup, for example, can be put to standby mode. "Standby"
>> covers that case too, better than "slave".
>
> So does this mean we should rename primary_conninfo?
Yes, I think it does. I'll change it tomorrow, barring objections or
someone else changing it first.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
