Re: remove wal_level archive

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.

I'm pretty sure nothing would break, but I do agree that it could be
confusing.

> 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"...)

I have been leaning toward making up a new name, too, but hadn't found a
good one.  I tend to like "replica", though.

> 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed
> in a later release.

If we do 1, then we might as well get rid of the old names right away.