Simon Riggs wrote:
Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused. The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would * document which other tools to use * remove the delay Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested the exact same thing again. The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade". Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended way). Which is what the patch implements. Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a long discussion and review process.
You ought to know by now that the length and ferocity of the discussion bears no relation at all to the importance of the subject ;-)
Personally, I think it's reasonable to provide the delay as long as it's switchable, although I would have preferred zero to be the default. If we remove it altogether then we force bigger changes on people who are currently using Windows copy. But I can live with that since changing their archive_command is the better path by far anyway, either to use Gnu cp or the copy / rename trick.
cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches