On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication
>> configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1]
>>  Let's get something going.
> I looked at this patch, which I think has got enough consensus that you
> should just push forward with the proposed design -- in particular, just
> remove one of archive or hot_standby values, not keep it as a synonym of
> the other.  If we're counting votes, I prefer keeping hot_standby over
> archive.

I see precisely 0 votes for that alternative upthread.  I came the
closest of anyone to endorsing that proposal, I think, but my
preferred alternative is to change nothing.

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:

Reply via email to