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.  >> 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. Yep. > 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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers