On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> No, lets not.
>
> The only stall happening is because of a refusal to listen to another
> person's reasonable request during patch review. That requirement is
> not a blocker to the idea, it just needs to be programmed.
>
> Lets just implement the reasonable request for backwards
> compatibility, rather than wasting time on reopening the debate.
I read this as "let's do it the way I proposed, instead of the way
other people proposed". I don't see how that suggestion advances the
debate. If I recall correctly, and I might not, because it's been a
year, you wanted to implicitly include recovery.conf in
postgresql.conf only when the system is recovery mode, but that gave
rise to a bunch of thorny definitional issues that were never
adequately solved. I would have been willing to tolerate that
solution if they had been, but they were not. It is not accurate to
suggest that you presented a reasonable proposal and other people
refused to listen. That is not what happened.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company