On 12/02/2014 10:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote: > >>> 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? > > You seem to be saying "I don't have any good idea how to solve this > problem now, but I will magically have one once this is committed". I'm > not sure that works very well.
No, I'm saying "this problem is easy to solve technically, but we have intractable arguments on this list about the best way to solve it, even though the bulk of the patch isn't in dispute". > In any case, the proposal upthread that we raise an error if > recovery.conf is found seems sensible enough. Users will see it and > they will adjust their stuff -- it's a one-time thing. It's not like > they switch a version forwards one week and back the following week. I'm OK with that solution. Apparently others aren't though. -- 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
