| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(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: | 2016-03-01 00:56:42 |
| Message-ID: | 56D4E8CA.6000305@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/8/16 9:36 AM, David Steele wrote:
> -#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.
I think this should eventually be cleaned up, but it doesn't seem
necessary in the first patch.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-03-01 01:02:46 | Re: remove wal_level archive |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-01 00:35:34 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |