Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah. �The original design for recovery.conf envisioned that it has only
>> a short lifespan while you're doing an archive recovery. �Putting
>> parameters for slave operation into it has contorted things beyond
>> recognition. �I think we really need to take two steps back and
>> reconsider the whole "parameters" versus "status" distinction there.
> Perhaps we should consider folding recovery.conf into postgresql.conf.
To the extent that it carries long-lived parameters, that would be
sensible. I think there's also a status component to what it's doing
though. Also, if we're trying to put SR parameters somewhere other than
postgresql.conf, it might be better if the existing parameters migrated
there instead.
regards, tom lane
