On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-09-13 at 14:46 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the
>>> capability to specify recovery parameters in recovery.conf) is
>>> required?
>>
>> I think parameters related to a particular recovery, e.g.,
>> recovery_target_time, fit better into a recovery.conf that is renamed
>> after the recovery is complete. That was the original idea, after all.
>>
>> Everything that is a permanent setting across multiple recovery
>> attempts, and anything related to replication, better fits elsewhere.
>
> I've just been thinking that a better way would be to make
> recovery.conf an extension of postgresql.conf when we are in archive
> recovery.
>
> So treat postgresql.conf as if it has an automatic "include
> recovery.conf" in it. The file format is the same.
>
> That way we don't need to change existing behaviour, so any software
> that relies upon this will still work, but we gain the additional
> ability to reload values in recovery,conf (where appropriate).
>
> We can change the .sample files to show parameters that make more
> sense in one or the other file, rather than making it a hard
> requirement for them to appear in specific files which will be a real
> pain in the ass.
>
> Internal changes would then be to move existing recovery.conf
> parameters into guc.c and revise the manual accordingly.
Sounds reasonable. I'll revise the patch that way.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
