On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:42 AM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Alright, then how about we provide a bit of help for everyone who's got > a system built around recovery.conf today, instead of just completely > ripping that out? > > If we're happy to do that then I really can't agree with these arguments > that there's things we should try to maintain when it comes to > interfaces, and that's far from the only example of a pretty massive > change that just went into version X with zero notice to users about > what they're using today being deprecated.
It's not the same thing. First of all, the recovery.conf changes have been under discussion for quite a few years now, whereas this change has been under discussion for only a few months. It is also worth noting that those recovery.conf changes would've been made years ago if people hadn't objected to breaking backward compatibility; people have just as much of a right to object to these changes on those grounds as they did to those changes. Second, the recovery.conf changes are intended to provide a tangible benefit - namely, getting the recovery.conf settings into the GUC system, so that they can be queried and changed using methods available for other GUCs. But the change proposed here breaks things for people who are using the mechanism in question and it doesn't give them anything else instead. Indeed, it seems quite obvious that you don't have the LEAST interest in putting any effort into actually making things in this area better for users; it appears that you just want to break what they're doing now and shove the work of coping with those changes onto them. Christophe is quite right to question whether that will cause users not to upgrade. I think it's overtly user-hostile. You have referred to the effort of maintaining this code, but you haven't pointed to any tangible improvement that you'd like to make in this area that is actually being blocked by the existence of exclusive backup mode. It's all just griping about how terrible the whole thing is, and it seems that there are actually quite a few people here who find it less terrible than you think it is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company