On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: >> I am not in favor of this part. It may be better to let the users know >> > that their old configuration is not valid anymore with an error. This >> > patch cuts in the flesh with a huge axe, let's be sure that users do >> > not ignore the side pain effects, or recovery.conf would be simply >> > ignored and users would not be aware of that. > Yeah, that is good point. > > I'd be in favor of a solution that works the same way as before the > patch, without the need for extra trigger files, etc., but that doesn't > seem to be nearly possible.
As previously discussed, there are ways to avoid having a trigger file for replication. However, it's hard to avoid having one for PITR recovery; at least, I can't think of a method which isn't just as awkward, and we might as well stick with the awkward method we know. > Whatever tricks we might employ will likely > be defeated by the fact that the oldschool user will fail to *include* > recovery.conf in the main conf file. Well, can we merge this patch and then fight out what to do for the transitional users as a separate patch? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers