From: Simon Riggs on
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> we have a consensus behind changing it, which it's starting to
> sound like we do.

I think you misread the +1s from Masao and myself.

Those confusing things are options and I want them to remain optional,
not compressed into a potentially too simple model based upon how the
world looks right now.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> We're going to need
> a bunch of GUCs any way we slice it. The issue is whether there's a
> way to slice it that involves fewer AND and OR operators that have to
> be understood by users.

So we're proposing adding parameters to simplify things for users? I
don't think fiddling is going to improve things significantly from a
usability perspective, especially at the last minute.

I'm guessing this conversation has more to do with the situation that
some very clever people have a little time on their hands after a long
period of hard work. I see no problem that needs to be solved, not
alongside this water cooler at least. Smells like beta time.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Heikki Linnakangas on
Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I agree with your objection to "crash" but not with the
> objection to "standby". Maybe this would be appropriate:
>
> wal_mode = minimal | archive | hot_standby

Ok, here's a patch implementing this proposal. It adds a new wal_mode
setting, leaving archive_mode as it is. If you try to enable
archive_mode when wal_mode is 'minimal', you get a warning and
archive_mode is silently ignored. Likewise streaming replication
connections are not allowed if wal_mode is 'minimal'.
recovery_connections now does nothing in the master.

A bit more bikeshedding before I commit this:

* Should an invalid combination throw an ERROR and refuse to start,
instead of just warning?

* How about naming the parameter wal_level instead of wal_mode? That
would better convey that the higher levels add stuff on top of the lower
levels, instead of having different modes that are somehow mutually
exclusive.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From: Josh Berkus on
Folks,

(a) is this checked in yet?
(b) should we delay Beta to test it?\

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers