On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >>>> I noticed that there's no way to specify the location of recovery.conf >>>> in postgresql.conf. > >>> +1 >>> >>> That parameter would be useful when user makes multiple standbys see >>> the same recovery.conf located in NFS or elsewhere. > >> Maybe i'm missing something but this would be a problem if we put a >> trigger file and the recovery.conf gets renamed to recovery.done, no? > > Yeah. The original design for recovery.conf envisioned that it has only > a short lifespan while you're doing an archive recovery. Putting > parameters for slave operation into it has contorted things beyond > recognition. I think we really need to take two steps back and > reconsider the whole "parameters" versus "status" distinction there.
Perhaps we should consider folding recovery.conf into postgresql.conf. > This is pretty tightly tied to the ongoing argument about where to keep > parameters for synchronous replication, too. The thing about the parameters for synchronous replication that is a little different is that you need a whole set of parameters *for each standby*. There's not a terribly clean way to handle that in postgresql.conf as it exists today, but getting any agreement on non-trivial changes to postgresql.conf has proven to be next to impossible, despite the fact that AFAICT approximately no one is happy with the status quo. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
