On 2021/01/27 14:32, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:06 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 04:13:24PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> I would like to commit this, because "waiting restore commands" have
>>> confusing interactions with my proposed prefetching-during-recovery
>>> patch[1]. Here's a version that fixes an error when building the docs
>>> (there was a stray remaining <xref linkend="pgstandby"/>), and adds a
>>> commit message. Any objections?
I agree with this direction (i.e, remove pg_standby). BTW last month when I gave the talk about possible retire of
pg_standbyat PostgreSQL Unconference Tokyo, no one in audience complained about that retire.
But one question is; shouldn't we follow "usual" way to retire the feature instead of dropping that immediately? That
is,mark pg_standby as obsolete, announce that pg_standby will be dropped after several releases, and then drop
pg_standby.This seems safe because there might be some users. While it's been marked as obsolete, maybe WAL prefetch
featuredoesn't work with pg_standby, but we can live with that because it's obsolete.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
