Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, there is another variable that they'll have to adjust as well,
>> but ISTM that archive_mode still does what it did before, ie, determine
>> whether we attempt to archive WAL segments.
> But it doesn't do EVERYTHING that it did before. Changing the name
> would make that a lot more clear. Of course I just work here.
I think from the user's point of view it does what it did before.
The fact that the actual content of WAL changed was an implementation
detail that users weren't aware of. Now that we have two interacting
features that affect WAL contents, it's getting too hard to hide that
from users --- but I see no need to rename archive_mode.
regards, tom lane