Thread: Removal of archive in wal_level
Hi all, Following the discussions done these last days about wal_level like this one: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEwigM-pPoBKGdkm6LZyO+OVrdz7sOXN_5By8e8PcaE3sA@mail.gmail.com Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. Thoughts? -- Michael
Attachment
> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. With the documentation updated, this is even better... Regards, -- Michael
Attachment
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. > With the documentation updated, this is even better... I'm unconvinced that there's any value in this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 11/4/13, 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. >> With the documentation updated, this is even better... > > I'm unconvinced that there's any value in this. Yeah, the only thing this will accomplish is to annoy people who are actually using that level. It would be more interesting if we could get rid of the wal_level setting altogether, but of course there are valid reasons against that.
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> On 11/4/13, 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject.
> >> With the documentation updated, this is even better...
> >
> > I'm unconvinced that there's any value in this.
>
> Yeah, the only thing this will accomplish is to annoy people who are
> actually using that level. It would be more interesting if we could get
> rid of the wal_level setting altogether, but of course there are valid
> reasons against that.
It would actually be valuable to 'upgrade' those people to
hot_standby, which is what I had kind of been hoping would happen
eventually. I agree that there's no use for 'archive' today, but rather
than break existing configs that use it, just make 'archive' and
'hot_standby' mean the same thing. In the end, I'd probably vote to
make 'hot_standby' the 'legacy/deprecated' term anyway.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote: >> On 11/4/13, 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Paquier >> > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. >> >> With the documentation updated, this is even better... >> > >> > I'm unconvinced that there's any value in this. >> >> Yeah, the only thing this will accomplish is to annoy people who are >> actually using that level. It would be more interesting if we could get >> rid of the wal_level setting altogether, but of course there are valid >> reasons against that. > > It would actually be valuable to 'upgrade' those people to > hot_standby, which is what I had kind of been hoping would happen > eventually. I agree that there's no use for 'archive' today, but rather > than break existing configs that use it, just make 'archive' and > 'hot_standby' mean the same thing. In the end, I'd probably vote to > make 'hot_standby' the 'legacy/deprecated' term anyway. That strikes me as a better idea than what the patch actually does, but I still think it's nanny-ism. I don't believe we have the right to second-guess the choices our users make in this area. We can make recommendations in the documentation, but at the end of the day if users choose to use archive rather than hot_standby, we should respect that choice, not break it because we think we know better. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company