Re: Hot standby documentation

Bruce,

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ah, I now realize it only mentions "warm" standby, not "hot", so I just
> updated the documentation to reflect that;  you can see it here:

Maybe the table below also needs an update, because unlike "Warm Standby 
using PITR", a hot standby accepts read-only queries and can be 
configured to not loose data on master failure.

> Do we want to call the feature "hot standby"?  Is a read-only standby a
> "standby" or a "slave"?

I think hot standby is pretty much the term, now.

Regards

Markus Wanner