On 2013/01/23, at 18:12, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version of the >> patch) > > If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a > rejected patch doesn't help, its just relighting a fire that shouldn't > ever have been lit. > > Pushing to do that out of order is just going to drain essential time > out of this CF from all of us. No problem to support both. The only problem I see is if the same parameter is defined in recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, is the priority given to recovery.conf? -- Michael Paquier http://michael.otacoo.com (Sent from my mobile phone)
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
