|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: remove wal_level archive|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2/7/16 4:47 PM, 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.
-#define XLogIsNeeded() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_ARCHIVE)
+#define XLogIsNeeded() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA)
-#define XLogStandbyInfoActive() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY)
+#define XLogStandbyInfoActive() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA)
Since these are identical now shouldn't one be removed? I searched the
code and I couldn't find anything that looked dead (i.e. XLogIsNeeded()
&& !XLogStandbyInfoActive()) but it still seems like having both could
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2016-02-08 14:37:14||Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2016-02-08 14:32:31||process type escape for log_line_prefix|