On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > As ever, we spent much energy on debating backwards compatibility > rather than just solving the problem it posed, which is fairly easy to > solve.
I'm still of the opinion (as were a lot of people on the previous thread, IIRC) that just making them GUCs and throwing backward compatibility under the bus is acceptable in this case. Changes that break application code are anathema to me, because people can have a LOT of application code and updating it can be REALLY hard. The same cannot be said about recovery.conf - you have at most one of those per standby, and if it needs to be changed in some way, you can do it with a very small Perl script. Yes, third-party tools will need to be updated; that is surely a downside, but I think it might be a tolerable one in this case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
