Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication > configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1] > 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. 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. 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. I'm marking this as Ready for Committer, and setting you up as such for this patch. If you would prefer not to commit, let me know and I can do so. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
