Re: Removal of archive in wal_level

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removal of archive in wal_level
Date: 2013-11-04 16:45:43
Message-ID: 20131104164543.GM2706@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> On 11/4/13, 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject.
> >> With the documentation updated, this is even better...
> >
> > I'm unconvinced that there's any value in this.
>
> Yeah, the only thing this will accomplish is to annoy people who are
> actually using that level. It would be more interesting if we could get
> rid of the wal_level setting altogether, but of course there are valid
> reasons against that.

It would actually be valuable to 'upgrade' those people to
hot_standby, which is what I had kind of been hoping would happen
eventually. I agree that there's no use for 'archive' today, but rather
than break existing configs that use it, just make 'archive' and
'hot_standby' mean the same thing. In the end, I'd probably vote to
make 'hot_standby' the 'legacy/deprecated' term anyway.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-11-04 17:07:07 Re: Removal of archive in wal_level
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-11-04 16:35:07 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments