On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> As a concrete example, there is nothing logically wrong with
>> driving a hot standby slave from WAL records shipped via old-style
>> pg_standby. Or how about wanting to turn off recovery_connections
>> temporarily, but not wanting the archived WAL to be unable to
>> support HS?
>
> As one more concrete example, we are likely to find SR beneficial if
> it can feed into a warm standby, but only if we can also do
> traditional WAL file archiving from the same source at the same
> time. The extra logging for HS would be useless for us in any
> event.
>
> +1 for *not* tying WAL contents to the transport mechanism.
OK. Well, it's a shame we didn't get this settled last week when I
first brought it up, but it's not too late to try to straighten it out
if we have a consensus behind changing it, which it's starting to
sound like we do.
...Robert
