On 27 March 2013 13:21, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 27 March 2013 12:59, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Also, based on Greg's spec (that Robert and I basically agreed on), if >>> recovery.conf is found at the root of data folder an error is returned to >>> user, recommending him to migrate correctly by referring to dedicated >>> documentation. >> >> I'm following what was agreed on 24 December. > > I assume that you are referring to this message: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+U5nMK8n=sq-xpvbvtics3nbvobjuvm5xbr+faeqn-rjjg...@mail.gmail.com > > I don't see a followup from anyone clearly agreeing that this was a > useful thing to do.
Please look again. > There is a lot of support for turning > recovery.conf parameters into GUCs. Who is against it? I am not. Even, I am working on it now, as already said in at least 3 different places. > But I don't remember anyone > supporting this idea, and like Heikki and Michael, I don't understand > how it moves the ball forward. > > Considering there's been no discussion of this particular change in > three months, and not a whole lot back then, I think it would have > been polite to post the patch and ask for comments before committing > it. Given various confusions and multiple patches, posting another wouldn't help much. In terms of politeness, I certainly mean no rudeness, only to move forward as agreed. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
