On 11/2/15 12:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 1 September 2015 at 10:39, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication
configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1]
[snip]
Bike-shedding: In this patch, I removed "archive" and kept
"hot_standby", because that's what the previous discussions suggested.
Historically and semantically, it would be more correct the other way
around. On the other hand, keeping "hot_standby" would probably require
fewer configuration files to be changed. Or we could keep both, but
that would be confusing (for users and in the code).
We need to keep both, IMO, with 'archive' as an obsolete synonym for
hot_standby.
I would prefer to rename 'hot_standby to 'archive' and make
'hot_standby' a deprecated synonym for the new 'archive' setting. This
prevents breakage in current configurations and avoids propagating a
misleading setting.
I see a fair number of installations with backup/archiving but no hot
standby (or any standby at all). There is often confusion when I
suggest setting 'wal_level' to 'hot_standby' to be better prepared for
the future. Admittedly these setups are becoming less common but they
are certainly out there.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
