On 27 March 2013 15:35, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> 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.
At no point have I said this commit has anything to do with making
recovery.conf into GUCs, in fact, I said exactly that they were
separate things, though discussed on the same thread. Requesting a
revoke because they are *not* connected doesn't make sense.
>> 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?
Please explain why you want this reverted, without mentioning the
other task we agree is required.
This commit was an agreed upon, uncontroversial feature. What changed?
> 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.
>> 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.
In the absence of reasons for change we leave things as they are.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
