Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul

On 2013/01/23, at 18:12, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:

> On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version of the
>> patch)
> 
> If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a
> rejected patch doesn't help, its just relighting a fire that shouldn't
> ever have been lit.
> 
> Pushing to do that out of order is just going to drain essential time
> out of this CF from all of us.
No problem to support both. The only problem I see is if the same parameter is defined in recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, is the priority given to recovery.conf?
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com
(Sent from my mobile phone)