From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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: | 2016-01-05 00:57:35 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQwxiqvejmy-je0oOsbVGsELc32f5k50Tq3wrCCYZ_uFg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:04 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.
FWIW I have advocated for the simple removal of 'archive' :)
> The patch is nicely compact and applies, with only some fuzz.
>
> I agree with changing all parts that say "XYZ or higher" to enumerate
> the possible values.
Yep.
> It may be a good idea to have a look at Michael Paquier's recovery test
> framework ( also in this commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/438/ )
> and see how that is affected by this patch. Maybe the tests can find a
> problem in this patch, and so perhaps you'd like to commit the tests
> first, then this change on top.
Those would need a rebase if this patch stays as is. I'll take actions
as needed.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-05 01:13:38 | Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain |
Previous Message | Petr Korobeinikov | 2016-01-04 23:55:16 | Re: Beginner hacker item: Fix to_reg*() input type |