Have we made any progress on this, namely better documentation and removing the Win32 delay code?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused. > > > > The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would > > * document which other tools to use > > * remove the delay > > > > Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested > > the exact same thing again. > > > > The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way > > which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade". > > Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to > > the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended > > way). Which is what the patch implements. > > > > Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This > > is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a > > long discussion and review process. > > > > You ought to know by now that the length and ferocity of the discussion > bears no relation at all to the importance of the subject ;-) > > Personally, I think it's reasonable to provide the delay as long as it's > switchable, although I would have preferred zero to be the default. If > we remove it altogether then we force bigger changes on people who are > currently using Windows copy. But I can live with that since changing > their archive_command is the better path by far anyway, either to use > Gnu cp or the copy / rename trick. > > cheers > > andrew > -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers