Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqTpwFt5PpipMhpZR8sd8=-YhMLj+JMUYpF2w__w8tLRww@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to
hot_standby + wal_senders
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive > and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and > stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the > wal_level = hot_standby changes (note I'm not proposing hot_standby = > on). +1. > So let's remove the split. It just gives users choice between two options > that don't have a meaningful difference. The last time I mentioned something similar (purely removing archive from wal_level CA+TgmoaTG9U4=A_bs8SbdEMM2+faPQhzUjhJ7F-nPFy+BNs_zA@mail.gmail.com), there were two additional suggestions done as well: - Keep archive and make it mean archive <=> hot_standby - Do nothing to still let the users what they think is better and not what we think is better. Perhaps times have changed since... I guess that you mean making both values become equivalent, right? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: