Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders

On 2015-02-03 21:58:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> > and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> > stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
> > wal_level = hot_standby changes (note I'm not proposing hot_standby =
> > on).
> +1.
>
> > So let's remove the split. It just gives users choice between two options
> > that don't have a meaningful difference.
>
> The last time I mentioned something similar (purely removing archive
> from wal_level CA+TgmoaTG9U4=A_bs8SbdEMM2+faPQhzUjhJ7F-nPFy+BNs_zA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com),
> there were two additional suggestions done as well:

> - Keep archive and make it mean archive <=> hot_standby

That's actually what I was thinking of implementing. I.e. accept
archive, but output hot_standby.

> - Do nothing to still let the users what they think is better and not
> what we think is better.

I'd rather remove the supporting code that takes different branches
based on those.

> Perhaps times have changed since...

I don't think the arguments back then made all that much sense. But
perhaps they're also less important if we change the default. For me
removing an option that doesn't have an effect but saving a couple bytes
every now and then and adding to the testing matrix isn't
'nannyism'. It's removing pointless choice.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services