From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:08:56 +0900
Message-ID: <5b42e286-ebd2-cad2-8c39-b50fd17b9c72@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGLpjvzW2wUCU-BQSzZK+mK3u8_c3t-ZJCTDezH1cUFAFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201029024412.GP5380@telsasoft.com>
<3de458c1-2299-92a8-1fa1-d59ac385140c@enterprisedb.com>
<20201121194105.GO24784@telsasoft.com>
<47c1a857-3e42-489d-6be3-ee229f970d0c@enterprisedb.com>
<CA+hUKGLrL42NSc-yKVvtGVg_=1zq8NFysy-xg1=4DShFsFVB9g@mail.gmail.com>
<YBD02x3LL/lge59J@paquier.xyz>
<CA+hUKGLpjvzW2wUCU-BQSzZK+mK3u8_c3t-ZJCTDezH1cUFAFg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2021/01/27 14:32, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:06 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 04:13:24PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> I would like to commit this, because "waiting restore commands" have
>>> confusing interactions with my proposed prefetching-during-recovery
>>> patch[1]. Here's a version that fixes an error when building the docs
>>> (there was a stray remaining <xref linkend="pgstandby"/>), and adds a
>>> commit message. Any objections?
I agree with this direction (i.e, remove pg_standby). BTW last month when I gave the talk about possible retire of pg_standby at PostgreSQL Unconference Tokyo, no one in audience complained about that retire.
But one question is; shouldn't we follow "usual" way to retire the feature instead of dropping that immediately? That is, mark pg_standby as obsolete, announce that pg_standby will be dropped after several releases, and then drop pg_standby. This seems safe because there might be some users. While it's been marked as obsolete, maybe WAL prefetch feature doesn't work with pg_standby, but we can live with that because it's obsolete.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, barwick@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby
In-Reply-To: <5b42e286-ebd2-cad2-8c39-b50fd17b9c72@oss.nttdata.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox