Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I have no idea why an objection from you should mean more than an
> objection from anyone else in the community, and I have no idea what an
> "extreme reaction" means, or why anyone should care.

Maybe I shouldn't say anything here. But clearly while you're spot on
that Simon's objection is worth just as much as any other contributor's,
I disagree that we shouldn't care about the way those people feel about
being a member of our community.

I appreciate your efforts to avoid having anyone here use such a wording
but I can't help to dislike your argument for it. I hope that's simply a
localisation issue (l10n is so much harder than i18n).

Anyway, I so much hate reading such exchanges here that I couldn't help
ranting about it. Back to suitable -hackers content.

> I think the concensus is to change this setting to a boolean. If you
> don't want to do it, I am sure we can find someone who will.

I don't think so. I understand the current state to be:
a. this problem is not blocking beta, but a must fix before release
b. we either have to change the API or the behavior
c. only one behavior change has been proposed, by Tom
d. proposed behavior would favor queries rather than availability
e. API change 1 is boolean + explicit pause/resume command
f. API change 2 is boolean + plugin facility, with a contrib for
current behavior.
g. API change 3 is boolean only

I don't remember reading any mail on this thread bearing consensus on
the choices above, but rather either one of us pushing for his vision or
people defending the current situation, complaining about it or asking
that a reasonable choice is made soon.

If we have to choose between reasonable and soon, soon won't be my
vote. Beta is meant to last more or less 3 months after all.

Each party's standing is clear. Decision remains to be made, and I guess
that the one writing the code will have a much louder voice.

Regards,
--
dim