On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 19:30 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > You've been perfectly happy for *years* with the situation that recovery
> > would fail if max_prepared_transactions was not correctly. You're not
> > going to tell me you never noticed? Why is avoidance of obvious
> > misconfiguration of HS such a heavy priority when nothing else ever was?
>
> That's not a priority, and I never said it was.
>
> It almost sounds like we're in a violant agreement: this issue of
> flipping wal_standby_info in the master has nothing to do with the
> removal of the capability to start standby from a shutdown checkpoint.
I removed the capability to start at shutdown checkpoints because you
said it would cause this bug. That gives two choices: fix the bug,
remove the feature. I don't think it is a priority to support that
feature, so I removed it in favour of other work.
I will work on issues in priority order and this was already on the list
and remains so. I don't have endless time, so realistically, given its
current priority it is unlikely to be addressed in this release.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
