On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 07:45:32PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 3 January 2013 18:35, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> >> In my view, the biggest problem with recovery.conf is that the
> >> parameters in there are not GUCs, which means that all of the
> >> infrastructure that we've built for managing GUCs does not work with
> >> them. As an example, when we converted recovery.conf to use the same
> >> lexer that the GUC machinery uses, it allowed recovery.conf values to
> >> be specified unquoted in the same circumstances where that was already
> >> possible for postgresql.conf. But, you still can't use SHOW or
> >> pg_settings with recovery.conf parameters, and I think pg_ctl reload
> >> doesn't work either. If we make these parameters into GUCs, then
> >> they'll work the same way everything else works. Even if (as seems
> >> likely) we end up still needing a trigger file (or a special pg_ctl
> >> mode) to initiate recovery, I think that's probably a win.
> >
> > I agree that it would be an improvement, and I would be happy just to
> > see the parameters become GUCs.
>
> That may be possible in 9.3 since we have a patch from Fujii-san. I'll
> hack that down to just the GUC part once we start the next CF.
>
> My personal priority is the shutdown checkpoint patch over that though.
>
> > I'm just saying that I'll still be pushing to get rid of the requirement
> > for recovery.conf in 9.4, that's all.
>
> No pushing required. When we have a reasonable proposal that improves
> on the current state, we can implement that.
Sounds like we are all in agreement and on a good track to completion.
I apologize for overreacting and thinking we were not addressing this
issue objectively. Thanks for the discussion.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +