Simon Riggs wrote:
> You've been perfectly happy for *years* with the situation that recovery
> would fail if max_prepared_transactions was not correctly. You're not
> going to tell me you never noticed? Why is avoidance of obvious
> misconfiguration of HS such a heavy priority when nothing else ever was?
That's not a priority, and I never said it was.
It almost sounds like we're in a violant agreement: this issue of
flipping wal_standby_info in the master has nothing to do with the
removal of the capability to start standby from a shutdown checkpoint.
So what *was* the reason? Was there something wrong with it? If not,
please put it back.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com