On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 03:57:10PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 24 December 2012 15:48, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > 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. > > That's exactly what I spent the afternoon doing.
OK, is that your 1-3, and you only want #1? > 1. Makes recovery.conf parameters into GUCs > 2. Moves these parameters to postgresql.conf > 3. Changes all the docs referring to recovery.conf Is that what everyone else wants? If that is all, let's do it and close the item. -- 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
