On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Ok, that brings us back to square one. We could still add the wal_mode
> GUC to explicitly control how much WAL is written (replacing
> recovery_connections in the primary), I think it would still make the
> system easier to explain. But it would add an extra hurdle to enabling
> archiving, you'd have to set wal_mode='archive', archive_mode='on', and
> archive_command. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the
> current situation.
I wasn't either, that's why I gave up. It didn't seem worth doing a
major GUC reorganization on the eve of beta unless there was a clear
win. I think there may be a way to improve this but I don't think
it's we should take the time now to figure out what it is. Let's
revisit it for 9.1, and just improve the error reporting for now.
...Robert
