On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I've just realized that one of the confusing things about this debate
> is that the recovery_connections parameter is very confusingly named.
> It might have been okay when HS existed in isolation, but with SR in the
> mix, it's not at all clear that the parameter refers to client
> connections made to a standby server, and not to replication connections
> made from a standby to its master. It is easy to think that this is a
> parameter that needs to be turned on in the master to allow standby
> slaves to connect to it.
>
> Another problem is that it looks more like an integer parameter
> (ie, maximum number of such connections) than a boolean.
>
> I think a different name would help. The best idea I can come up with
> on the spur of the moment is "allow_standby_queries", but I'm not sure
> that can't be improved on. Comments?
I agree that name is better. It would also be nice if the name of
that GUC matched the value that must be set for wal_level as closely
as possible.
...Robert
