On 1/15/14, 3:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Three issues:
>
> a) if postgresql is still going to look for a recovery.conf file in the
> usual place, but we are changing the names and meaning of some of the
> parameters, then aren't we making the upgrade problem much worse?
That assumes that we are changing the names and meanings of some of the
parameters, which I don't see a reason for.
> b) what if the admin *does* want to disable reading recovery.conf in
> order to prevent old utilities from mistakenly including one? How will
> they do that?
That assumes that there is a reason for doing that, which goes away if
point (a) is addressed.
> c) would this be in the configdir, datadir, or both?
That might depend on the parameter and what a tool wants to do with it.
There is also the consideration of whether some of those tools couldn't
be changed to use ALTER SYSTEM.
> I'd thought that part of the idea of the merger was to remove the
> "magic" status of recovery.conf.
Well, clearly, everyone has their own ideas about that. I have several
non-overlapping ones of my own. ;-) But my point is that we should look
what actually comes out of that discussion before we start designing
other facilities that interact with it.
