| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 20:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | 201110112052.p9BKq0T02229@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Standard conforming strings
> > was tricky because it was more user-facing, or certainly SQL-facing.
>
> Why is SQL more important than backup?
Because the percentage of database users it affects is different.
Administrators know when they are installing a new version of Postgres
and already are probably changing these configuration files.
Application binaries and perhaps application developers are not as aware
of a change, and there are a far higher percentage of them in an
organization than administrators.
> There is no good reason to do this so quickly.
I just gave you a reason above, and as I said, doing backward
compatibility can make the system more complex.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-11 20:52:36 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-11 20:51:19 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |