Re: remove wal_level archive

On 11/2/15 12:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 1 September 2015 at 10:39, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication
>> configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Bike-shedding: In this patch, I removed "archive" and kept
>> "hot_standby", because that's what the previous discussions suggested.
>> Historically and semantically, it would be more correct the other way
>> around. On the other hand, keeping "hot_standby" would probably require
>> fewer configuration files to be changed. Or we could keep both, but
>> that would be confusing (for users and in the code).
>
> We need to keep both, IMO, with 'archive' as an obsolete synonym for
> hot_standby.

I would prefer to rename 'hot_standby to 'archive' and make
'hot_standby' a deprecated synonym for the new 'archive' setting. This
prevents breakage in current configurations and avoids propagating a
misleading setting.

I see a fair number of installations with backup/archiving but no hot
standby (or any standby at all). There is often confusion when I
suggest setting 'wal_level' to 'hot_standby' to be better prepared for
the future. Admittedly these setups are becoming less common but they
are certainly out there.

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