On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> > On 9/29/10 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> But that's not what Tom is talking about, I don't think: you might >> >>> also want a way to explicitly whack the flag in pg_control around. >> >>> That would probably be along the lines of pg_resetxlog. I'm not sure >> >>> how much use case there is for such a thing, but if it's needed it's >> >>> certainly wouldn't be hard to write. >> >> >> >> Right, but instead of having to provide such a tool, we could just >> >> store the status as a text file. There is a pretty time-honored >> >> tradition for that, ya know. >> > >> > And then move all the other config parameters to postgresql.conf? >> >> The consensus seems to be to move only parameters for the standby server >> (except standby_mode) to postgresql.conf. That is, primary_conninfo and >> trigger_file. > > I think we should allow them to be set in both places. I see no point at > all in invalidating everybody's configuration settings; we have many > external products that use this, various open source projects rely on it > plus everybody's roll-your-own scripts. > > All new settings would be added to postgresql.conf > > We can keep recovery.conf but recommend it is now left empty. So the > status is the existence of that file, just as it is now.
+1. Getting recovery.conf to be parsed using the same code we use for parsing postgresql.conf would be nice from a code cleanup point of view, too. -- 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
