Horton

Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-01-28T22:13:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:08:56PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks.  FWIW, at this stage, my take is just to move on and remove
> it.  If we mark that as obsolete, it will stay around forever while
> annoying future development.

I agree.  Also, this thing is entirely separate from the server, so a
hypothetical user who really wants to upgrade to 14 but keep using
pg_standby a bit longer could always use the version that shipped with
13.

Commits

  1. Remove documentation of waiting restore_command.

  2. Retire pg_standby.

  3. doc: Fix typos