From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master() |
Date: | 2012-12-21 17:12:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoac8JqgsZD5G4n-6Zpvp+PJ+cxRrf+Yq=+2pfjDeapE+g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> No, lets not.
>
> The only stall happening is because of a refusal to listen to another
> person's reasonable request during patch review. That requirement is
> not a blocker to the idea, it just needs to be programmed.
>
> Lets just implement the reasonable request for backwards
> compatibility, rather than wasting time on reopening the debate.
I read this as "let's do it the way I proposed, instead of the way
other people proposed". I don't see how that suggestion advances the
debate. If I recall correctly, and I might not, because it's been a
year, you wanted to implicitly include recovery.conf in
postgresql.conf only when the system is recovery mode, but that gave
rise to a bunch of thorny definitional issues that were never
adequately solved. I would have been willing to tolerate that
solution if they had been, but they were not. It is not accurate to
suggest that you presented a reasonable proposal and other people
refused to listen. That is not what happened.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Charles Gomes | 2012-12-21 17:27:26 | Re: Writing Trigger Functions in C |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-21 16:56:34 | Re: Writing Trigger Functions in C |