Have we made any progress on this, namely better documentation and
removing the Win32 delay code?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +