On 21 December 2012 17:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Having looked into how to solve it, I think its solvable easily enough.
If the energy expended on that thread, and now this one was directed
to actually solve the problem, it would be solved.
Characterising the problem as containing a bunch of thorny
definitional issues is just a way to further avoid that,
unintentionally or not.
"Whether you think you can or think you can't, either way you are
right" - Henry Ford
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services