On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > No, lets not. > > The only stall happening is because of a refusal to listen to another > person's reasonable request during patch review. That requirement is > not a blocker to the idea, it just needs to be programmed. > > Lets just implement the reasonable request for backwards > compatibility, rather than wasting time on reopening the debate.
I read this as "let's do it the way I proposed, instead of the way other people proposed". I don't see how that suggestion advances the debate. If I recall correctly, and I might not, because it's been a year, you wanted to implicitly include recovery.conf in postgresql.conf only when the system is recovery mode, but that gave rise to a bunch of thorny definitional issues that were never adequately solved. I would have been willing to tolerate that solution if they had been, but they were not. It is not accurate to suggest that you presented a reasonable proposal and other people refused to listen. That is not what happened. -- 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
