On 20 December 2012 19:29, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:34:14PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 19 December 2012 22:19, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It stalled because the patch author decided not to implement the
>> >> request to detect recovery.conf in data directory, which allows
>> >> backwards compatibility.
>> >
>> > Well, I don't think we had agreement on how important backwards compatibility for recovery.conf was, particularly
noton the whole recovery.conf/recovery.done functionality and the wierd formatting of recovery.conf.
>>
>> As ever, we spent much energy on debating backwards compatibility
>> rather than just solving the problem it posed, which is fairly easy to
>> solve.
>
> Let me also add that I am tired of having recovery.conf improvement
> stalled by backward compatibility concerns. At this point, let's just
> trash recovery.conf backward compatibility and move on.
No, lets not.
The only stall happening is because of a refusal to listen to another
person's reasonable request during patch review. That requirement is
not a blocker to the idea, it just needs to be programmed.
Lets just implement the reasonable request for backwards
compatibility, rather than wasting time on reopening the debate.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
