On 2015-01-16 21:50:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > 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.
> What makes you think that the situation could move suddendly move into > a direction more than another? That we have to fix this. I see absolutely no advantage of declaring the discussion closed for now. That doesn't exactly increase the chance of this ever succeeding. 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
