I have a fairly large TODO list, and Simon has thrown in the towel (and
I imagine he also has a large TODO list).
anyone else want to step in?
cheers
andrew
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Have we made any progress on this, namely better documentation and
> removing the Win32 delay code?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused.
>>>
>>> The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would
>>> * document which other tools to use
>>> * remove the delay
>>>
>>> Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested
>>> the exact same thing again.
>>>
>>> The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way
>>> which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade".
>>> Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to
>>> the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended
>>> way). Which is what the patch implements.
>>>
>>> Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This
>>> is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a
>>> long discussion and review process.
>>>
>>>
>> You ought to know by now that the length and ferocity of the discussion
>> bears no relation at all to the importance of the subject ;-)
>>
>> Personally, I think it's reasonable to provide the delay as long as it's
>> switchable, although I would have preferred zero to be the default. If
>> we remove it altogether then we force bigger changes on people who are
>> currently using Windows copy. But I can live with that since changing
>> their archive_command is the better path by far anyway, either to use
>> Gnu cp or the copy / rename trick.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> andrew
>>
>>
>
>