On 20 December 2012 19:29, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:34:14PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 19 December 2012 22:19, Joshua Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> > >> >> It stalled because the patch author decided not to implement the >> >> request to detect recovery.conf in data directory, which allows >> >> backwards compatibility. >> > >> > Well, I don't think we had agreement on how important backwards >> > compatibility for recovery.conf was, particularly not on the whole >> > recovery.conf/recovery.done functionality and the wierd formatting of >> > recovery.conf. >> >> As ever, we spent much energy on debating backwards compatibility >> rather than just solving the problem it posed, which is fairly easy to >> solve. > > Let me also add that I am tired of having recovery.conf improvement > stalled by backward compatibility concerns. At this point, let's just > trash recovery.conf backward compatibility and move on.
No, lets not. The only stall happening is because of a refusal to listen to another person's reasonable request during patch review. That requirement is not a blocker to the idea, it just needs to be programmed. Lets just implement the reasonable request for backwards compatibility, rather than wasting time on reopening the debate. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
