Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Date
Msg-id CABOikdP94TY0ku257BFAPi-XprY9cQCHnBfRvEWcOh-z7yshdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:


 Will just have to figure out what we want the user interface to be like; should it be a separate guc, or somehow cram it into wal_level?


Yeah, I had brought up similar idea up thread. Right now wal_level is nicely ordered. But with this additional logic, I am not sure if we would need multiple new levels and also break that ordering (I don't know if its important). For example, one may want to set up streaming replication with/without this feature or hot standby with/without the feature. I don't have a good idea about how to capture them in wal_level. May be something like: minimal, archive, archive_with_this_new_feature, hot_standby and hot_standby_with_this_new_feature.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MAP_HUGETLB where supported (v3)