| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove wal_level archive |
| Date: | 2016-01-28 01:53:09 |
| Message-ID: | 56A97485.8060404@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Removing one of "archive" or "hot standby" will just cause confusion and
> breakage, so neither is a good choice for removal.
I'm pretty sure nothing would break, but I do agree that it could be
confusing.
> What we should do is
> 1. Map "archive" and "hot_standby" to one level with a new name that
> indicates that it can be used for both/either backup or replication.
> (My suggested name for the new level is "replica"...)
I have been leaning toward making up a new name, too, but hadn't found a
good one. I tend to like "replica", though.
> 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed
> in a later release.
If we do 1, then we might as well get rid of the old names right away.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-28 01:55:46 | Re: remove wal_level archive |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-28 01:05:14 | Re: [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel) |