Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On 2013-10-24 22:57:29 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In fact I've been considering suggesting we might want to retire the
> difference between archive and hot_standby as wal_level, because the
> difference is usually so small. And the advantage of hot_standby is in
> almost every case worth it. Even in the archive recovery mode, being
> able to do pause_at_recovery_target is extremely useful. And as you
> say in (c) above, many users don't realize that until it's too late.

+1.

On 2013-10-25 15:16:30 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> But it has been a couple of releases since there have been no such
> bugs, no?

One 'no' too much? Anyway, I think there have been more recent ones, but
it's infrequent enough that we can remove the level anyway.

FWIW, I've wondered if we shouldn't remove most of the EnableHotStandby
checks in xlog.c. There are way too many difference how StartupXLOG
behaves depending on HS.
E.g. I quite dislike that we do stuff like StartupCLOG at entirely
different times during recovery.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services