Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:50 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > I keep seeing this thrown around and I don't quite get why we feel this > > is the case. I'm not completely against trying to maintain backwards > > compatibility, but at the same time, we just went through changing quite > > a bit around in v12 with the restore command and that's the other half > > of this. Why are we so concerned about backwards compatibility here > > when there was hardly any complaint raised about breaking it in the > > restore case? > > There are 0 references to restore_command in the v12 release notes. > Just in case you had the version number wrong in this email, I > compared the documentation for restore_command in v10 to the > documentation in v14. The differences seem to be only cosmetic. So I'm > not sure what functional change you think we made. It was probably > less significant than what was being discussed here in regards to > archive_command.
restore_command used to be in recovery.conf, which disappeared with v12 and it now has to go into postgresql.auto.conf or postgresql.conf. That's a huge breaking change. > Also, more to the point, when there's a need to break backward > compatibility in order to get some improvement, it's worth > considering, but here there just isn't. There won't be any thought towards a backwards-incompatible capability if everyone is saying that we can't possibly break it. That's why I was commenting on it. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
