On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >>> I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get >>> rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make >>> it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists >>> state. >> >> +1. If it's not a configuration file anymore, it shouldn't be called >> one. > > +1 to rename file > > +1 to overall concept, just thinking same myself, not looked at patch yet
Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the capability to specify recovery parameters in recovery.conf) is required? Even if we maintain the backward-compatibility, if we rename the file, ISTM that the tools which depends on recovery.conf would need to be changed so that <file-with-new-name> is used instead of recovery.conf. So I'm not sure whether leaving the capability to set parameters in recovery.conf as it is is really worth supporting or not. If we would like to make our effort for the backward-compatibility more worthwhile, we might have to make the path of the file configurable as a user can set it to "recovery.conf". Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
