On 4 February 2013 19:53, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This seems pretty close to an accusation of bad faith, which I don't > believe to be present.
Robert, this is not an accusation of bad faith, just an observation that we can move forwards more quickly. I understand completely why you wish to make slow changes, I just don't believe it is warranted in this case. I'm not sure how or why that becomes some kind of accusation against you personally. In this case, and others, moving forwards quickly can be achieved at the same time as backwards compatibility with some thought and documentation. > I find your attitude toward backward compatibility to be astonishingly > inconsistent. We haven't made any progress on overhauling > recovery.conf in two years because you've steadfastly stonewalled any > forward progress on backwards-compatibility grounds, even though a > change there can't possible break any working PostgreSQL > *application*, only the admin tools. I stonewalled nothing; what exactly do you think I hoped to gain by such actions? In fact, I repeatedly encouraged change and showed how we could have both backwards compatibility and progress. Any lack of progress is not a result of my request for backwards compatibility, made in the interests of avoiding data loss and very broken applications. -- 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
