Re: DeArchiver process

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If we introduce "walrestore" process, pg_standby seems no longer useful.
>> We should get rid of it?
>
> Removing things too quickly can cause problems. There's no harm done
> by keeping it a while longer.
>
> I agree it should go, just want to be absolutely clear that its no
> longer needed for any use case.

I agree that it would be premature to remove pg_standby at this point.
But how about changing the default value of standby_mode from "off"
to "on" in 9.2? I think most new installations are probably using
that, rather than pg_standby, and changing the default would give
people a gentle push in what now seems to be the preferred direction.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company