On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Furthermore, if you're wanting to use pg_standby, you might be
>> forgiven for thinking that you should set standby_mode = on; but in
>> fact that's exactly the wrong thing to do.
>
> Yeah, I think that's the main weakness of the name "standby_mode". It's
> pretty descriptive otherwise, we call that mode of operation "standby"
> everywhere, and always have.
>
> I'm not sure I dare to say this out loud after Simon's previous
> outburst, but removing or renaming pg_standby would help with that...
Not really. People aren't going to forget about it just because we
remove it from CVS HEAD.
>> One possibility that occurs to me is that we could call it something
>> like integrated_standby; but I'm not attached to that.
>
> Anything with the word 'standby' in it suffers from the same problem,
> maybe not as badly but still.
Well, let's come up with something else then.
...Robert
