On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2015-01-16 21:43:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > I have written similar logic, and while it's not pleasant, it's doable. >> > This issue would really only go away if you don't use a file to signal >> > recovery at all, which you have argued for, but which is really a >> > separate and more difficult problem. >> Moving this patch to the next CF and marking it as returned with >> feedback for current CF as there is visibly no consensus reached. > > I don't think that's a good idea. If we defer this another couple months > we'l *never* reach anything coming close to concensus. What makes you think that the situation could move suddendly move into a direction more than another? (FWIW, my vote goes to the all GUC approach with standby.enabled.) -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
