On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 03:57:10PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 December 2012 15:48, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 03:13:59PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> I don't think that represents enough change to keep people happy, but
> >> I don't see anything else useful being suggested in this patch. Other
> >> design thoughts welcome, but personally, I think rushing this design
> >> through at this stage is likely to require us to change the design
> >> again in later releases.
> >
> > Simon, you just agreed to:
> >
> >> At this point, backward compatibility seems to be hampering our ability
> >> to move forward. I would like a vote that supports creation of a new
> >> method for setting up streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery,
> >> where backward compatibility is considered only where it is minimally
> >> invasive.
> >
> > Let's figure out the API we want and implement it.
>
> That's exactly what I spent the afternoon doing.
OK, is that your 1-3, and you only want #1?
> 1. Makes recovery.conf parameters into GUCs
> 2. Moves these parameters to postgresql.conf
> 3. Changes all the docs referring to recovery.conf
Is that what everyone else wants? If that is all, let's do it and close
the item.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
