On 2015-01-16 21:50:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable.
> >> > This issue would really only go away if you don't use a file to signal
> >> > recovery at all, which you have argued for, but which is really a
> >> > separate and more difficult problem.
> >> Moving this patch to the next CF and marking it as returned with
> >> feedback for current CF as there is visibly no consensus reached.
> >
> > I don't think that's a good idea. If we defer this another couple months
> > we'l *never* reach anything coming close to concensus.
> What makes you think that the situation could move suddendly move into
> a direction more than another?
That we have to fix this.
I see absolutely no advantage of declaring the discussion closed for
now. That doesn't exactly increase the chance of this ever succeeding.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services