On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:05:36AM +0900, Robert Haas wrote: > I wish to point out that there currently seem to be more votes against > this proposal than for it, and that nobody should commit a patch > unless there is a consensus that it should be committed, whether or > not the committer personally agrees with the arguments against it. > > As for my vote, I do not buy the idea that because we're changing some > stuff about recovery.conf we should go ahead and do this too. Yes, > they are related, but just because you adjust your backup/restore > script/tool to cope with one change doesn't mean that you don't have > to adjust it some more to cope with the other change. > > I also think that the idea that supporting the exclusive backup > interface is hurting anything is greatly exaggerated. Whether we keep > it or not, we're not forcing anyone to use it.
+1 on all that. Per the trend of this thread, I see a bunch of committers and contributors commenting about *not* removing this code, so sending a patch to actually remove it looks like a throw into an abysmal void. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
