On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:44 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2018-12-12 11:32:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:05:36AM +0900, Robert Haas wrote: > > I wish to point out that there currently seem to be more votes against > > this proposal than for it, and that nobody should commit a patch > > unless there is a consensus that it should be committed, whether or > > not the committer personally agrees with the arguments against it. > > > > As for my vote, I do not buy the idea that because we're changing some > > stuff about recovery.conf we should go ahead and do this too. Yes, > > they are related, but just because you adjust your backup/restore > > script/tool to cope with one change doesn't mean that you don't have > > to adjust it some more to cope with the other change. > > > > I also think that the idea that supporting the exclusive backup > > interface is hurting anything is greatly exaggerated. Whether we keep > > it or not, we're not forcing anyone to use it. > > +1 on all that. Per the trend of this thread, I see a bunch of > committers and contributors commenting about *not* removing this code, > so sending a patch to actually remove it looks like a throw into an > abysmal void.
I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be:
In favor: - David Steele - Andres Freund - Stephen Frost, I think
You forgot me, also in this camp :P
Against: - Simon Riggs - Robert Haas - Michael Paquier - Andreas Karlsson - Peter Eisentraut, I think
While that's clearly lopsided, I still think it's pretty darn absurd to call such a situation "a throw into an abysmal void".
I'd say it's close enough to an even split to say it doesn't go either way. But we can clearly say it's not consensus for removing it (nor for keeping it, but that would be the default..)
