From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
> After reading through the thread (but not reading the patch) I am -1 on
> this proposal.
>
> The feature seems ripe for abuse and misunderstanding, and as has been
> noted in the thread, there are a variety of alternatives that can
> provide a similar effect.
>
> It doesn't help that at several points along the way new WAL records
> have been found that still need to be included even when wal_level =
> none. It's not clear to me how we know when we have found them all.
>
> The patch is marked Ready for Committer but as far as I can see there
> are no committers in favor of it and quite a few who are not.
I can understand that people are worried about not having WAL. But as far as I remember, I'm afraid those concerns
wereemotional, not logical, i.e., something like "something may happen.". Regarding concrete concerns that
Stephen-san,Magnus-san, Horiguchi-san, Sawada-san and others raised, Osumi-san addressed them based on their advice and
review,both in this thread and other threads.
I also understand we want to value people's emotion for worry-free PostgreSQL. At the same time, I'd like the emotion
understoodthat we want Postgres to have this convenient, easy-to-use feature. MySQL recently introduced this feature.
Whycan't Postgres do it?
> Perhaps it would be better to look at some of the more targeted
> approaches mentioned in the thread and see if any of them can be
> used/improved to achieve the desired result?
Other methods are not as easy-to-use, and more complex to implement.
What kind of destiny does this type of feature end up in?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa}
