On 27.03.2013 17:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 14:20, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> You didn't answer the question. Does this get us any closer to merging
>> postgresql.conf and recovery.conf? Why is this bundled in with that?
>
> Why do you think these points are bundled?
Because you say that this controversial commit is the 1st step before
the 2nd step, which is to actually merge postgresql.conf and recovery.conf.
> It clearly isn't and I've
> not claimed it gets us any closer to that goal.
Ok, cool. Can you please revert this commit so that we can move on, then?
> But it is the first part of two agreed changes. And I am now working
> on the second, which is the recovery.conf GUCs.
Thanks!
>> ISTM the quickest way forward is to revert this, and proceed with the rest
>> of the plan: get Michael/Fujii's patch into shape, and commit it. If we
>> still think this additional GUC is a good idea after that, we can add it
>> afterwards just as well.
>
> My review of that patch is on file and my rejection of it clear for
> all to see. I have proposed a way forwards, which achieved agreement
> then and I have made it clear all the way that I would work on that,
> and am now doing so. None of that is a surprise. And Fujii will
> receive credit for his contribution, which is the bit where we make
> recovery parms into GUCs.
Oh, ok. I thought the patch in the commitfest implemented what was
agreed on, but I admit I haven't looked at it closely.
> In summary, we have clear agreement that a file needs to trigger
> recovery. We have no reason to believe that renaming the trigger file
> to something else is a good thing, hence recovery.conf should remain
> and its contents be treated as GUCs.
I'm fine with that. But at least Robert just said he thinks the trigger
file should not be called recovery.conf, based on Greg Smith's earlier
proposal. I'm starting to feel that when we seemed to have a consensus
around Christmas, some people thought we agreed on one thing, and others
thought we agreed on something else.
For the record, I'm happy with calling the file recovery.conf, so that
it's backwards-compatible. I'm also happy with renaming it, per Greg
Smith's/Robert Haas' proposal.
> And recovery.conf now has the option of living in a different
> directory, which needs to be writable. So we have the new features
> desired, plus backwards compatibility. And off I go to code now.
Yeah, we need to see the actual patch, so that everyone knows what
exactly is being proposed. In any case, it's independent of this commit.
- Heikki
