On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On tis, 2011-09-13 at 14:46 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> Are you still thinking the backward-compatibility (i.e., the >>> capability to specify recovery parameters in recovery.conf) is >>> required? >> >> I think parameters related to a particular recovery, e.g., >> recovery_target_time, fit better into a recovery.conf that is renamed >> after the recovery is complete. That was the original idea, after all. >> >> Everything that is a permanent setting across multiple recovery >> attempts, and anything related to replication, better fits elsewhere. > > I've just been thinking that a better way would be to make > recovery.conf an extension of postgresql.conf when we are in archive > recovery. > > So treat postgresql.conf as if it has an automatic "include > recovery.conf" in it. The file format is the same. > > That way we don't need to change existing behaviour, so any software > that relies upon this will still work, but we gain the additional > ability to reload values in recovery,conf (where appropriate). > > We can change the .sample files to show parameters that make more > sense in one or the other file, rather than making it a hard > requirement for them to appear in specific files which will be a real > pain in the ass. > > Internal changes would then be to move existing recovery.conf > parameters into guc.c and revise the manual accordingly.
Sounds reasonable. I'll revise the patch that way. 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