On 2021/01/27 14:32, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:06 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@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_standby at 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 feature doesn'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
