On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Martin Zaun wrote: > >> With these avenues to be explored, can the pg_standby patch on the > >> CommitFest wiki be moved to the "Returned with Feedback" section? > > > Yes, I think we can conclude that we don't want this patch as it is. > > Instead, we want a documentation patch that describes the problem, > > mentioning that GNU cp is safe, or you can use the copy+rename trick. > > Right, after which we remove the presently hacked-in delay. > > I've updated the commitfest page accordingly.
Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused. The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would * document which other tools to use * remove the delay Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested the exact same thing again. The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade". Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended way). Which is what the patch implements. Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a long discussion and review process. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
