Re: remove wal_level archive

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: remove wal_level archive
Дата
Msg-id 56D4E8CA.6000305@gmx.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: remove wal_level archive  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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 >= WAL_LEVEL_REPLICA)
> 
> Since these are identical now shouldn't one be removed?  I searched the
> code and I couldn't find anything that looked dead (i.e. XLogIsNeeded()
> && !XLogStandbyInfoActive()) but it still seems like having both could
> cause confusion.

I think this should eventually be cleaned up, but it doesn't seem
necessary in the first patch.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: snapshot too old, configured by time
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: remove wal_level archive