On 21 December 2012 19:21, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:25:47PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 20 December 2012 19:29, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>> > At this point backward compatibility has paralyzed us from fixing a
>> > recovery.conf API that everyone agrees is non-optimal, and this has
>> > gone on for multiple major releases. I don't care what we have to do,
>> > just clean this up for 9.3!
>>
>> The main stall at this point is that the developer who wrote that
>> patch no longer spends much time working on Postgres. AFAICS there is
>> nobody working on this for 9.3 mainly because its not a priority, nor
>> will implementing that fix the OP's request.
>
> The job wasn't completed because the demands for backward compatibility
> were too complex from a coding/user experience perspective, so the
> original developer just went away.
It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original
developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this.
>> There is no paralysis because there never was a blocker, only a
>> request for backwards compatibility, which is easily possible to
>> implement.
>
> OK, and I am saying the request for backwards compatibility is rejected.
> You want to have a vote on that right now?
>
> And don't make your typical demands that you will not 'accept' something
> that isn't backward compatible. I don't care if you accept anything or
> not, we are moving ahead, with or without you.
>
> If we can't get beyond this, I need to start blogging at how insular our
> developer team is and how we need new people to joint the hackers list
> and we can start this discussion all over again with a new group.
Yes, I think having some people on this list who make decisions after
they have heard technical facts would be a welcome change.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services