MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAK3UJRESXhFVwCT5VyDrngoV21U2Wojv6c7EpUUQfWMKCainZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAK3UJRELGc4v_aoRstG8kY0JfCrt4xNUeW=uxtnwPSZ4zV5nMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK3UJRESXhFVwCT5VyDrngoV21U2Wojv6c7EpUUQfWMKCainZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:54:29 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevEzJZZTZdwoD1b1-=ss_A+T0XYGckuKBx3os_ZLjCk1BnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: streaming replication confusion
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Streaming Replication wiki page[1] contains similar out-of-date
>> claims[2]; I can fix some of the egregious errors myself, though help
>> is welcome. The "Synchronous Replication" wiki page[3] is in even
>> worse shape, containing mostly info about a patch different than what
>> was committed... and it's currently the first Google search result for
>> "postgresql synchronous replication" :-(
>
> I've shuffled around the Synchronous replication page, and made some
> changes to Streaming Replication, though the latter could probably use
> some further pruning. Could someone take a look at the small
> documentation patch?

Was that message supposed to contain a second patch, or were you just
referring to the one you sent back in November?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs