On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:25:47PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 20 December 2012 19:29, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > At this point backward compatibility has paralyzed us from fixing a
> > recovery.conf API that everyone agrees is non-optimal, and this has
> > gone on for multiple major releases. I don't care what we have to do,
> > just clean this up for 9.3!
>
> The main stall at this point is that the developer who wrote that
> patch no longer spends much time working on Postgres. AFAICS there is
> nobody working on this for 9.3 mainly because its not a priority, nor
> will implementing that fix the OP's request.
The job wasn't completed because the demands for backward compatibility
were too complex from a coding/user experience perspective, so the
original developer just went away.
> There is no paralysis because there never was a blocker, only a
> request for backwards compatibility, which is easily possible to
> implement.
OK, and I am saying the request for backwards compatibility is rejected.
You want to have a vote on that right now?
And don't make your typical demands that you will not 'accept' something
that isn't backward compatible. I don't care if you accept anything or
not, we are moving ahead, with or without you.
If we can't get beyond this, I need to start blogging at how insular our
developer team is and how we need new people to joint the hackers list
and we can start this discussion all over again with a new group.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
