On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:04 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.

FWIW I have advocated for the simple removal of 'archive' :)

> The patch is nicely compact and applies, with only some fuzz.
> I agree with changing all parts that say "XYZ or higher" to enumerate
> the possible values.


> It may be a good idea to have a look at Michael Paquier's recovery test
> framework ( also in this commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/438/ 
> )
> and see how that is affected by this patch.  Maybe the tests can find a
> problem in this patch, and so perhaps you'd like to commit the tests
> first, then this change on top.

Those would need a rebase if this patch stays as is. I'll take actions
as needed.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to