Re: remove wal_level archive

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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