Horton

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

Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Phil Sorber <phil@omniti.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-26T22:14:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

I would think that if someone created a recovery.conf file they would
expect that to be given priority. Otherwise they would know that was a
deprecated method and would set it in postgresql.conf only.

> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com
> (Sent from my mobile phone)