| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby |
| Date: | 2021-01-28 07:36:39 |
| Message-ID: | YBJph3+BLVQXGSTG@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:08:56PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> But one question is; shouldn't we follow "usual" way to retire the
> feature instead of dropping that immediately? That is, mark
> pg_standby as obsolete, announce that pg_standby will be dropped
> after several releases, and then drop pg_standby. This seems safe
> because there might be some users. While it's been marked as
> obsolete, maybe WAL prefetch feature doesn't work with pg_standby,
> but we can live with that because it's obsolete.
Thanks. FWIW, at this stage, my take is just to move on and remove
it. If we mark that as obsolete, it will stay around forever while
annoying future development.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-01-28 07:50:44 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-01-28 07:31:01 | Re: Two patches to speed up pg_rewind. |