On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 07:32:33PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > As ever, we spent much energy on debating backwards compatibility
> > rather than just solving the problem it posed, which is fairly easy to
> > solve.
>
> I'm still of the opinion (as were a lot of people on the previous
> thread, IIRC) that just making them GUCs and throwing backward
> compatibility under the bus is acceptable in this case. Changes that
> break application code are anathema to me, because people can have a
> LOT of application code and updating it can be REALLY hard. The same
> cannot be said about recovery.conf - you have at most one of those per
> standby, and if it needs to be changed in some way, you can do it with
> a very small Perl script. Yes, third-party tools will need to be
> updated; that is surely a downside, but I think it might be a
> tolerable one in this case.
Agreed. We have always has a more lax requirement of changing the
Postgres administration interface. I am not saying to ignore backward
compatibility, but future admin interface clarity overrules backward
compatibility in most cases. If people are really worried about this,
they can write a Perl script to convert from the old to new format.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +