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.
> There is a lot of support for turning
> recovery.conf parameters into GUCs.
Who is against it? I am not. Even, I am working on it now, as already
said in at least 3 different places.
> But I don't remember anyone
> supporting this idea, and like Heikki and Michael, I don't understand
> how it moves the ball forward.
>
> Considering there's been no discussion of this particular change in
> three months, and not a whole lot back then, I think it would have
> been polite to post the patch and ask for comments before committing
> it.
Given various confusions and multiple patches, posting another
wouldn't help much.
In terms of politeness, I certainly mean no rudeness, only to move
forward as agreed.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
