Re: History of WAL_LEVEL (archive vs hot_standby)
| От | Amit Langote |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: History of WAL_LEVEL (archive vs hot_standby) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+HiwqFhdF4iO2R-U79u1WRHRQAzYEzmhjgM4i1wb=b=tLRD9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: History of WAL_LEVEL (archive vs hot_standby) (David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Slightly tangential but are the locking operations associated with the > recent bugfix generated in both (all?) modes or only hot_standby? I thought > it strange that transient locking operations were output with WAL though I > get it if they are there to support read-only queries. > IIUC, XLogStandbyInfoActive() is used at places where it is thought that the WAL record being written at that point would be required on a standby for correct hot standby operation (comments at these call sites are helpful). /* Do we need to WAL-log information required only for Hot Standby and logical replication? */ #define XLogStandbyInfoActive() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY) -- Amit
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: