On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 03:13:59PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > I don't think that represents enough change to keep people happy, but > I don't see anything else useful being suggested in this patch. Other > design thoughts welcome, but personally, I think rushing this design > through at this stage is likely to require us to change the design > again in later releases.
Simon, you just agreed to: > At this point, backward compatibility seems to be hampering our ability > to move forward. I would like a vote that supports creation of a new > method for setting up streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery, > where backward compatibility is considered only where it is minimally > invasive. Let's figure out the API we want and implement it. If we haven't figured out a perfect answer in 2 years, we never will and we should just do our best. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
