On 2018-12-12 11:32:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:05:36AM +0900, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I wish to point out that there currently seem to be more votes against
> > this proposal than for it, and that nobody should commit a patch
> > unless there is a consensus that it should be committed, whether or
> > not the committer personally agrees with the arguments against it.
> >
> > As for my vote, I do not buy the idea that because we're changing some
> > stuff about recovery.conf we should go ahead and do this too. Yes,
> > they are related, but just because you adjust your backup/restore
> > script/tool to cope with one change doesn't mean that you don't have
> > to adjust it some more to cope with the other change.
> >
> > I also think that the idea that supporting the exclusive backup
> > interface is hurting anything is greatly exaggerated. Whether we keep
> > it or not, we're not forcing anyone to use it.
>
> +1 on all that. Per the trend of this thread, I see a bunch of
> committers and contributors commenting about *not* removing this code,
> so sending a patch to actually remove it looks like a throw into an
> abysmal void.
I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be:
In favor:
- David Steele
- Andres Freund
- Stephen Frost, I think
Against:
- Simon Riggs
- Robert Haas
- Michael Paquier
- Andreas Karlsson
- Peter Eisentraut, I think
While that's clearly lopsided, I still think it's pretty darn absurd to
call such a situation "a throw into an abysmal void".
Greetings,
Andres Freund