On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If we introduce "walrestore" process, pg_standby seems no longer useful. >> We should get rid of it? > > Removing things too quickly can cause problems. There's no harm done > by keeping it a while longer. > > I agree it should go, just want to be absolutely clear that its no > longer needed for any use case.
I agree that it would be premature to remove pg_standby at this point. But how about changing the default value of standby_mode from "off" to "on" in 9.2? I think most new installations are probably using that, rather than pg_standby, and changing the default would give people a gentle push in what now seems to be the preferred direction. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
