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. If we haven't
figured out a perfect answer in 2 years, we never will and we should
just do our best.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +