Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby
Date: 2021-01-28 22:13:03
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+yNF2WNwKjE1NUesVHQt=5pXTBF2u2F9ZJDG72MzJsKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:08:56PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > But one question is; shouldn't we follow "usual" way to retire the
> > feature instead of dropping that immediately? That is, mark
> > pg_standby as obsolete, announce that pg_standby will be dropped
> > after several releases, and then drop pg_standby. This seems safe
> > because there might be some users. While it's been marked as
> > obsolete, maybe WAL prefetch feature doesn't work with pg_standby,
> > but we can live with that because it's obsolete.
>
> Thanks. FWIW, at this stage, my take is just to move on and remove
> it. If we mark that as obsolete, it will stay around forever while
> annoying future development.

I agree. Also, this thing is entirely separate from the server, so a
hypothetical user who really wants to upgrade to 14 but keep using
pg_standby a bit longer could always use the version that shipped with
13.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-01-28 23:12:54 Re: Online checksums patch - once again
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-01-28 22:10:35 Re: Allow matching whole DN from a client certificate