Re: remove wal_level archive

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.

Otherwise pg_upgrade will get grumpy, and so will users who migrate
their configurations.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services