On 2/8/16 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Removing one of "archive" or "hot standby" will just cause confusion and >>> breakage, so neither is a good choice for removal. >>> >>> What we should do is >>> 1. Map "archive" and "hot_standby" to one level with a new name that >>> indicates that it can be used for both/either backup or replication. >>> (My suggested name for the new level is "replica"...) >>> 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed >>> in a later release. >> >> Updated patch to reflect these suggestions. > > I wonder if the "keep one / keep both" argument is running in circles as > new reviewers arrive at the thread. Perhaps somebody could read the > whole thread(s) and figure out a way to find consensus so that we move > forward on this.
There was a lot of argument upstream about whether to keep 'hot_standby' or 'archive' but after the proposal to change it to 'replica' came up everybody seemed to fall in line with that. +1 from me for using 'replica' as the WAL level to replace 'hot_standby' and 'archive'. +1 from me for removing the 'hot_standby' and 'archive' options entirely in 9.6 rather than deprecating. Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for committer'. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
Description: OpenPGP digital signature