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. I've closed it as returned-with-feedback for now. Please resubmit to next CF. -- 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
