Re: remove wal_level archive

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: remove wal_level archive
Date: 2016-02-08 14:36:40
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
cause confusion.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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