On 24.10.2013 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 04:15 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> If we do what you are suggesting, it seems like a single line patch to me.
>> In XLogSaveBufferForHint(), we probably need to look at this additional GUC
>> to decide whether or not to backup the block.
>
> Wait, what? Why are we having an additional GUC?
>
> I'm opposed to the idea of having a GUC to enable failback. When would
> anyone using replication ever want to disable that?
For example, if you're not replicating for high availability purposes,
but to keep a reporting standby up-to-date.
- Heikki
