On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 19:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> > * Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> [100211 09:17]:
> >
> >> Yeah, if you're careful about that, then this change isn't required. But
> >> pg_standby protects against that, so I think it'd be reasonable to have
> >> the same level of protection built-in. It's not a lot of code.
> >
> > This 1 check isn't, but what about the rest of the things pg_standby
> > does. How much functionality should we bring it? Ideally, "all" of it.
>
> Well, how about we bite the bullet then and add enough bells and
> whistles to the backend that pg_standby really isn't needed anymore, and
> remove it from contrib?
>
> Looking at the options to pg_standby, we're not missing much:
You're attitude to this makes me laugh, and cry.
Removing pg_standby can be done and if you manage it well, I would be
happy. I laugh because it seems like you think I have some ego tied up
in it. It's hardly my finest hour of coding, especially since I've not
had the ability to improve it much before now.
Not missing *much*?! I cry because you're so blase about missing one or
two essential features that took years to put in place. Keeping
pg_standby at least guarantees we can do something about it when we
discover you didn't do a good enough job removing it.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
