Re: Removal of archive in wal_level

* 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