On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2013/01/23, at 18:12, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version of the >>> patch) >> >> If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a >> rejected patch doesn't help, its just relighting a fire that shouldn't >> ever have been lit. >> >> Pushing to do that out of order is just going to drain essential time >> out of this CF from all of us. > No problem to support both. The only problem I see is if the same parameter > is defined in recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, is the priority given to > recovery.conf?
I would think that if someone created a recovery.conf file they would expect that to be given priority. Otherwise they would know that was a deprecated method and would set it in postgresql.conf only. > -- > Michael Paquier > http://michael.otacoo.com > (Sent from my mobile phone) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
