Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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.
Hm? Perhaps the problem is that the thread stood on the shoulders of
larger threads. Andres Freund and Magnus Hagander both expressed,
independently, their desire to see one of these modes go away:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150203124317.GA24767@awork2.anarazel.de
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEy15Y=sF8doKjD86eujJZL=Tq2jyUSiYVkg6EVwVt=cag@mail.gmail.com
Actually, in the first of these threads
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20150203124317.GA24767@awork2.anarazel.de
there's a lot of discussion about getting rid of wal_level completely
instead, but it doesn't look like there's any movement at all in that
direction. I think we should take this pretty small change that
improves things a bit in that direction, then others can continue to
propose further simplifications to our configuration in that area.
We could continue to do nothing, but then we've already been doing that
for some time and it hasn't changed things much.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
