Re: remove wal_level archive

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
Date: 2016-02-08 19:34:09
Message-ID: 20160208193409.GA317242@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
next CF.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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