On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable. > > This issue would really only go away if you don't use a file to signal > > recovery at all, which you have argued for, but which is really a > > separate and more difficult problem. > Moving this patch to the next CF and marking it as returned with > feedback for current CF as there is visibly no consensus reached.
I don't think that's a good idea. If we defer this another couple months we'l *never* reach anything coming close to concensus. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
