|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: remove wal_level archive|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
> > 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"...)
> > 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed
> > in a later release.
> Updated patch to reflect these suggestions.
I wonder if the "keep one / keep both" argument is running in circles as
new reviewers arrive at the thread. Perhaps somebody could read the
whole thread(s) and figure out a way to find consensus so that we move
forward on this.
I've closed it as returned-with-feedback for now. Please resubmit to
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Joshua D. Drake||2016-02-08 19:36:27||Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2016-02-08 19:31:36||Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes|