Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size differences
between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby. I'm
not seeing a ton of difference. I've read some posts about discussions as
to whether this parameter should be simplified and remove or merge these 2
values.
I'd like to understand the historic reason between have the extra
"hot_standby" value. Was it to introduce replication and not disturb the
already working "archive" value? If I'm new to Postgres, is there any
strategic reason to use "archive" at this point if replication is something
I'll be using in the future? I'm not seeing any downside to "hot_standby"
unless I'm missing something fundamental.
Thanks,
Shawn
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/History-of-WAL-LEVEL-archive-vs-hot-standby-tp5797717.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
