On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:43:29PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 21 December 2012 19:35, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> >> It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original
> >> developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this.
> >
> > Well, Robert and I remember it differently.
> >
> > Anyway, I will ask for a vote now.
>
> And what will you ask for a vote on? Why not spend that effort on
> solving the problem? Why is it OK to waste so much time?
I have already sent out the vote request.
> Having already explained how to do this, I'll add backwards
> compatibility within 1 day of the commit of the patch you claim was
> blocked by this. I think it will take me about an hour and not be very
> invasive, just to prove what a load of hot air is being produced here.
I have seen too many cases where things are derailed. I think we need a
clear statement of exactly how important backward compatibility is in
this case. I think the fear of you requesting stuff has basically
scared everyone away from working on this. Of course, I might be wrong,
but I have to make a guess on this one.
> >> Yes, I think having some people on this list who make decisions after
> >> they have heard technical facts would be a welcome change.
> >
> > OK, I will start blogging too.
>
> Good for you. I'll stick to trying to improve PostgreSQL by coding.
Well, when our process is broken, coding doesn't really solve the
problem, at least from my perspective.
Let me explain it this way. A family has a car they love, but the car
is in bad shape, so they all go to the auto dealership. They like some
features of the new cars, but it doesn't have everying the old car had,
so they go to another dealership, and then another. Two years go buy,
and they still haven't gotten a new car, and the old car is getting
worse. As some point, someone in the family has to stand up and say,
"Hey we aren't going to get everything we liked in the old car, but we
have to make a decision and move forward."
That is where we are now. Overhauling recovery.conf can't be a
super-complex job, and we already have a patch we can base it of off.
Why is this not done yet! I don't know, but I have seen lots of
discussion about it, and no clear conclusions, at least that you agree
with. I have realized this could languish for another two years unless
I stand up, say the old car is dead, and force us to get a new car!
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +