On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 19:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > > * Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> [100211 09:17]: > > > >> Yeah, if you're careful about that, then this change isn't required. But > >> pg_standby protects against that, so I think it'd be reasonable to have > >> the same level of protection built-in. It's not a lot of code. > > > > This 1 check isn't, but what about the rest of the things pg_standby > > does. How much functionality should we bring it? Ideally, "all" of it. > > Well, how about we bite the bullet then and add enough bells and > whistles to the backend that pg_standby really isn't needed anymore, and > remove it from contrib? > > Looking at the options to pg_standby, we're not missing much:
You're attitude to this makes me laugh, and cry. Removing pg_standby can be done and if you manage it well, I would be happy. I laugh because it seems like you think I have some ego tied up in it. It's hardly my finest hour of coding, especially since I've not had the ability to improve it much before now. Not missing *much*?! I cry because you're so blase about missing one or two essential features that took years to put in place. Keeping pg_standby at least guarantees we can do something about it when we discover you didn't do a good enough job removing it. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
