On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> I quite liked Robert's proposal to add an explicit GUC to control what
>>> extra information is logged
>>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00509.php). It
>>> is quite difficult to explain the current behavior, a simple explicit
>>> wal_mode GUC would be a lot simpler. It wouldn't add any extra steps to
>>> setting the system up, you currently need to set archive_mode='on'
>>> anyway to enable archiving. You would just set wal_mode='archive' or
>>> wal_mode='standby' instead, depending on what you want to do with the WAL.
>>
>> I liked it, too, but I sort of decided it didn't buy much. There are
>> three separate sets of things that need to be controlled:
>>
>> 1. What WAL to emit - (a) just enough for crash recovery, (b) enough
>> for log shipping, (c) enough for log shipping with recovery
>> connections.
>>
>> 2. Whether to run the archiver.
>>
>> 3. Whether to allow streaming replication connections (and if so, how many).
>
> Streaming replication needs the same information in the WAL as archiving
> does,
True.
> there's no difference between 2 and 3. (the "how many" aspect of 3
> is controlled by max_wal_senders).
False.
I thought what you think too, but discovered otherwise when I read the
code. Some uses of archive_mode are used to control what WAL is
generated, but others control a *process* called the archiver.
...Robert
