Horton

Re: [PATCH] remove pg_archivecleanup and pg_standby

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>, "masao.fujii@gmail.com" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2020-11-16T08:10:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 05:28:46PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Removing pg_standby has been proposed a couple of times in the past. See https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170913064824.rqflkadxwpboabgw@alap3.anarazel.de
> for the latest attempt.
> 
> Masao-san, back in 2014 you mentioned "fast failover" as a feature that was
> missing from the built-in standby mode (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEE_8vvpQk0ex6Qa_aXt-OSJ7OdZjX4uM_FtqKfxq5SbQ%40mail.gmail.com).
> I think that's been implemented since, with the recovery_target settings.
> Would you agree?
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can remove pg_standby by now. But if there's something
> crucial missing from the built-in facilities, we need to talk about
> implementing them.

Reading the thread you are mentioning, it seems to me that the
statu-quo is the same, but I find rather scary that this tool is used
in exactly zero tests.

Echoing with Robert, I think that pg_archivecleanup is still useful in
many cases, so that's not something we should remove.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Remove documentation of waiting restore_command.

  2. Retire pg_standby.

  3. doc: Fix typos