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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
