Re: remove wal_level archive

On 2/8/16 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

There was a lot of argument upstream about whether to keep 'hot_standby'
or 'archive' but after the proposal to change it to 'replica' came up
everybody seemed to fall in line with that.

+1 from me for using 'replica' as the WAL level to replace 'hot_standby'
and 'archive'.

+1 from me for removing the 'hot_standby' and 'archive' options entirely
in 9.6 rather than deprecating.

Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for
committer'.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net