On 3 January 2013 18:35, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Robert, > >> In my view, the biggest problem with recovery.conf is that the >> parameters in there are not GUCs, which means that all of the >> infrastructure that we've built for managing GUCs does not work with >> them. As an example, when we converted recovery.conf to use the same >> lexer that the GUC machinery uses, it allowed recovery.conf values to >> be specified unquoted in the same circumstances where that was already >> possible for postgresql.conf. But, you still can't use SHOW or >> pg_settings with recovery.conf parameters, and I think pg_ctl reload >> doesn't work either. If we make these parameters into GUCs, then >> they'll work the same way everything else works. Even if (as seems >> likely) we end up still needing a trigger file (or a special pg_ctl >> mode) to initiate recovery, I think that's probably a win. > > I agree that it would be an improvement, and I would be happy just to > see the parameters become GUCs.
That may be possible in 9.3 since we have a patch from Fujii-san. I'll hack that down to just the GUC part once we start the next CF. My personal priority is the shutdown checkpoint patch over that though. > I'm just saying that I'll still be pushing to get rid of the requirement > for recovery.conf in 9.4, that's all. No pushing required. When we have a reasonable proposal that improves on the current state, we can implement that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
