Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Date
Msg-id 20161216222957.GA19805@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:16:36PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >>> You are saying this is more massive than any other change we have made
> >>> in the past?  In general, what need to be documented?
> > 
> >> I don't necessarily think it's because it's more massive than any chance we
> >> have made before. I think it's more that this is something that we probably
> >> should've had before, and just didn't.
> > 
> >> Right now we basically have a bulletpoint list of things that are new, with
> >> a section about things that are incompatible.  Having an actual section
> >> with more detailed descriptions of how to handle these changes would
> >> definitely be a win. it shouldn't *just* be for these changes of course, it
> >> should be for any other changes that are large enough to benefit from more
> >> than a oneliner about the fact that they've changed.
> > 
> > Yeah, it seems to me that where this is ending up is "we may need to
> > write more in the compatibility entries than we have in the past".
> > I don't see any problem with that, particularly if someone other than
> > Bruce or me is volunteering to write it ;-)
> 
> I'm up for writing it (with help from feature owners), provided that I
> don't have to spend time arguing that it's not too long, or that I
> should put it somewhere different.  So can we settle the "where"
> question first?

I am fine with the release note, or the release notes plus a link to a
wiki, like we have done in the past with complex fixes in minor
releases:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20110408pg_upgrade_fix

I think what we _don't_ want is the information _only_ in the wiki, nor
do we want to carry around migration instructions in our docs forever.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallelexecution
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Passwordidentifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)