Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTpwFt5PpipMhpZR8sd8=-YhMLj+JMUYpF2w__w8tLRww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
> and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
> stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
> wal_level = hot_standby changes (note I'm not proposing hot_standby =
> on).
+1.

> So let's remove the split. It just gives users choice between two options
> that don't have a meaningful difference.

The last time I mentioned something similar (purely removing archive
from wal_level CA+TgmoaTG9U4=A_bs8SbdEMM2+faPQhzUjhJ7F-nPFy+BNs_zA@mail.gmail.com),
there were two additional suggestions done as well:
- Keep archive and make it mean archive <=> hot_standby
- Do nothing to still let the users what they think is better and not
what we think is better.
Perhaps times have changed since... I guess that you mean making both
values become equivalent, right?
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders