On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
