Re: Hot standby, recovery procs

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 
>>> You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.
>> Simplicity.
> 
> You used that argument in January to explain why the coupling should be
> reduced and now the same argument to put it back again.

That was in reference to the slot ids, I'm not suggesting to put that 
back. If anything, removing the need for the the xl_topxid field in WAL 
record will further reduce the coupling between master and standby.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com