On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 13:21, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 March 2013 12:59, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, based on Greg's spec (that Robert and I basically agreed on), if
>>>> recovery.conf is found at the root of data folder an error is returned to
>>>> user, recommending him to migrate correctly by referring to dedicated
>>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> I'm following what was agreed on 24 December.
>>
>> I assume that you are referring to this message:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+U5nMK8n=sQ-xPvBVtiCS3NbVObjUVM5xBR+FAeQN-RjjGxSQ@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> I don't see a followup from anyone clearly agreeing that this was a
>> useful thing to do.
>
> Please look again.
I have a better idea: how about if you tell me where you see any such
message? Because I think the reason I don't see it is because it
doesn't exist.
It's not my job to go back and scour the archives for evidence that
there is some consensus around this commit. It's your job to provide
some evidence that such a consensus exists. Or else revert the
commit, because so far no one but you seems to believe that this was a
good idea. The fact that nobody specifically objected to one line in
an email message you posted three months ago does not constitute
grounds to go change it without so much as posting the patch. Or at
least I can't imagine that any other committer would take it that way.Even Tom posts his patches before committing
them,unless there's
been specific and recent discussion of the topic. What gives you the
right to do otherwise?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
