Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see much problem with rejecting VAC FULL in a HS master,
>> whether or not it gets removed altogether. Why not just do that
>> rather than write a lot of kluges?
> Hmm. At the moment, no action is required in the master to allow hot
> standby in the slave, except for turning on archiving. The additional
> overhead of the extra logging that's needed in the master is small
> enough that there has been no need for a switch.
There's no equivalent of XLogArchivingActive()? I think there probably
should be. I find it really hard to believe that there won't be any
places where we need to know that we're an HS master. The original
design of WAL archiving didn't think we needed to know we were archiving
WAL, either, and look how many cases there are for that now.
regards, tom lane