On 2018-12-12 11:32:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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.
I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be: In favor: - David Steele - Andres Freund - Stephen Frost, I think Against: - Simon Riggs - Robert Haas - Michael Paquier - Andreas Karlsson - Peter Eisentraut, I think While that's clearly lopsided, I still think it's pretty darn absurd to call such a situation "a throw into an abysmal void". Greetings, Andres Freund
