> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
No comments:
Post a Comment