Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's no equivalent of XLogArchivingActive()?
> We've tried hard to have it "just work". But I wonder whether we should
> have a parameter to allow performance testing on the master? If nobody
> finds any issues then we can remove it again, or at least make it a
> hidden developer option.
As long as there's not anything the master actually does differently
then I can't see where there'd be any performance testing to do. What's
bothering me about this is that it seems likely that we'll find places
where the master has to do things differently. I'd rather we made the
status visible; if we get through a release cycle without needing to
check it, we can always take the function out again. But if we don't,
and then find out midway through the 8.5 release cycle that we need to
be able to check it, things could be a bit sticky.
regards, tom lane