On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:33:27AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Masahiko Sawada > > The idea of changing the default value seems good to me but I'm not sure > > it's good idea to change the default value now under the circumstances where > > we're focus on stabilization. > > Also we should update the document as well. > > > > We can consider like this: the OP found a usability problem as a result of PG 10 development, so we will fix it as a stabilization work.
We did work in Postgres 10 to make replication simpler with better defaults. This would be part of that improvement.
+1. I definitely think we should do it, and 10 would be the time to do it.
The failure scenario is that a standby node will no longer work by default *if* you have changed the master to minimal. But unless you have explicitly dropped that one, it would work.
So I definitely think we should change that.
I wonder if we should also consider changing the standby error message to be a WARNING instead of an ERROR. So that if you try to start up a standby with hot_standby=on but master with wal_level=replica it would turn into a cold standby.
We should change the default independently of that, I think, but it might make sense to do both.
