From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alex Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs |
Date: | 2014-12-02 18:13:52 |
Message-ID: | 547E0160.1040202@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/02/2014 06:25 AM, Alex Shulgin wrote:
>> I am not in favor of this part. It may be better to let the users know
>> > that their old configuration is not valid anymore with an error. This
>> > patch cuts in the flesh with a huge axe, let's be sure that users do
>> > not ignore the side pain effects, or recovery.conf would be simply
>> > ignored and users would not be aware of that.
> Yeah, that is good point.
>
> I'd be in favor of a solution that works the same way as before the
> patch, without the need for extra trigger files, etc., but that doesn't
> seem to be nearly possible.
As previously discussed, there are ways to avoid having a trigger file
for replication. However, it's hard to avoid having one for PITR
recovery; at least, I can't think of a method which isn't just as
awkward, and we might as well stick with the awkward method we know.
> Whatever tricks we might employ will likely
> be defeated by the fact that the oldschool user will fail to *include*
> recovery.conf in the main conf file.
Well, can we merge this patch and then fight out what to do for the
transitional users as a separate patch?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-02 18:17:23 | Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-02 18:13:07 | Re: Testing DDL deparsing support |