| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove wal_level archive |
| Date: | 2016-01-04 19:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobjGW65cWfCigM7NN-MWmhFa_S44oLkR6TrZXmtuAdckg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication
>> configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1]
>> Let's get something going.
>
> I looked at this patch, which I think has got enough consensus that you
> should just push forward with the proposed design -- in particular, just
> remove one of archive or hot_standby values, not keep it as a synonym of
> the other. If we're counting votes, I prefer keeping hot_standby over
> archive.
I see precisely 0 votes for that alternative upthread. I came the
closest of anyone to endorsing that proposal, I think, but my
preferred alternative is to change nothing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-01-04 20:05:56 | Re: remove wal_level archive |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-01-04 19:26:14 | Re: bootstrap pg_shseclabel in relcache initialization |