Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> In fact I've been considering suggesting we might want to retire the
> difference between archive and hot_standby as wal_level, because the
> difference is usually so small. And the advantage of hot_standby is in
> almost every case worth it. Even in the archive recovery mode, being
> able to do pause_at_recovery_target is extremely useful. And as you
> say in (c) above, many users don't realize that until it's too late.
+1 on removing archive from wal_level. Having both archive and
hot_standby for wal_level is confusing, and if I recall correctly
hot_standby and archive have been kept as possible settings only to
protect people from bugs that the newly-introduced hot_standby could
introduce due to the few WAL records it adds. But it has been a couple
of releases since there have been no such bugs, no?
-- 
Michael