On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 11:37 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> [100429 11:24]:
> >
> > What is the reason for the *extra* "off" switch? Why two? Why "off"
> > twice?
>
> Because I run a PITR slave off a WAL archive... And I'm going to
> continue to try and use this setup... I expect to try and experiment
> with wal-streaming too when everything is up to 9, and be a little upset
> when the "old faithfull" backup I've got and am betting my job on
> suddenly starts acting differentlyl, or accepting connections and
> causing my db clients to start thowing errors because I'm trying to get
> a streaming replication w/ hot standby up on a *different* slave...
>
> It's all about the path of least *suprise*. My "least suprise" would
> have been that a similar config I have now with my PITR slaves would
> pretty much still work, and not suddenly start accepting connections,
> and even worse, at some later date when I've already verified that it
> was doing what I expected with the configuration.
If people upgrade to 9.0 and then are surprised that the features listed
are actually available, I too would be surprised.
If we all believe that these radical surprises are a problem, then we
should also turn off join removal and loads of other features in 9.0
that will also cause surprises.
HS is the most requested feature across multiple polls and *not* being
able to connect to it is likely to come as a huge surprise to many
people. HS is just as secure as the main database.
There is no big use case for "run with HS turned off". Everybody wants
it on, as long as it works and don't cause problems. So far, there is no
evidence to make anyone think that it would and I wish to avoid that
implication.
Heikki previously argued strongly against having any switch at all, so
it could be turned on all the time. Nothing's changed.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com