Re: remove wal_level archive - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: remove wal_level archive
Date
Msg-id 56A97485.8060404@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: remove wal_level archive  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: remove wal_level archive  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Removing one of "archive" or "hot standby" will just cause confusion and
> breakage, so neither is a good choice for removal.

I'm pretty sure nothing would break, but I do agree that it could be
confusing.

> What we should do is 
> 1. Map "archive" and "hot_standby" to one level with a new name that
> indicates that it can be used for both/either backup or replication.
>       (My suggested name for the new level is "replica"...)

I have been leaning toward making up a new name, too, but hadn't found a
good one.  I tend to like "replica", though.

> 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed
> in a later release.

If we do 1, then we might as well get rid of the old names right away.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: remove wal_level archive