Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-04-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:50 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >>> Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for >>> committer'. >>

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-03-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:50 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote: > >> Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for >> committer'. > > > This patch is now ready for committer. Yes, thanks, I am cool with this version as

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-03-14 Thread David Steele
On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote: Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for committer'. This patch is now ready for committer. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-03-11 Thread David Steele
On 2/8/16 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/8/16 7:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> - if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY) >> + if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA) >> Upthread it was mentioned that

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/16 7:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Shouldn't backup.sgml be updated as well? Here is the portion that I > am referring to: > To enable WAL archiving, set the > configuration parameter to archive or higher, > to on, > > But minimal WAL does not contain enough

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/16 9:36 AM, David Steele wrote: > -#define XLogIsNeeded() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_ARCHIVE) > +#define XLogIsNeeded() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA) > <...> > -#define XLogStandbyInfoActive() (wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY) > +#define XLogStandbyInfoActive() (wal_level >=

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-08 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:47 AM, 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-08 Thread David Steele
On 2/7/16 4:47 PM, 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-02-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On 1 September 2015 at 03:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > - The distinction between wal_level settings "archive" and "hot_standby" > is in the way of automation or better intelligence, because the primary > cannot tell what the receiver intends to do with the WAL. > > So here is

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-26 Thread Euler Taveira
On 26-01-2016 12:56, Simon Riggs wrote: > Removing one of "archive" or "hot standby" will just cause confusion and > breakage, so neither is a good choice for removal. > Agree. > What we should do is > 1. Map "archive" and "hot_standby" to one level with a new name that > indicates that it can

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > 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] > >>

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2016-01-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-11-02 Thread Craig Ringer
On 2 November 2015 at 14:19, Michael Paquier wrote: > pg_upgradecluster has some logic to switch a parameter value (see > strrepl) That's part of pg_wrapper, not core, though. I'd quite like to see pg_wrapper become part of the PGDG RPMs, but right now AFAIK it's a

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > We need to keep both, IMO, with 'archive' as an obsolete synonym for > hot_standby. > > Otherwise pg_upgrade will get grumpy, and so will users who migrate > their configurations. Removing options entirely arguably

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-11-02 Thread David Steele
On 11/2/15 12:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 1 September 2015 at 10:39, 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] [snip] Bike-shedding: In this

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-11-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 1 September 2015 at 10:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication >> configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular.

Re: [HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-11-01 Thread Craig Ringer
On 1 September 2015 at 10:39, 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] > > [snip] > > Bike-shedding: In this patch, I removed "archive" and kept >

[HACKERS] remove wal_level archive

2015-09-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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. While we have not reached a complete consensus yet, a few things have become clear: - We would like to have fewer or