Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size differences between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby. I'm not seeing a ton of difference. I've read some posts about discussions as to whether this parameter should be simplified and remove or merge these 2 values.
I'd like to understand the historic reason between have the extra "hot_standby" value. Was it to introduce replication and not disturb the already working "archive" value? If I'm new to Postgres, is there any strategic reason to use "archive" at this point if replication is something I'll be using in the future? I'm not seeing any downside to "hot_standby" unless I'm missing something fundamental. Thanks, Shawn -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/History-of-WAL-LEVEL-archive-vs-hot-standby-tp5797717.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
