Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > There has been discussion in the past of removing or significantly
> > changing the way streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery (PITR) is
> > setup in Postgres. Currently the file recovery.conf is used, but that
> > was designed for PITR and does not serve streaming replication well.
> >
> > This all should have been overhauled when streaming replication was
> > added in 2010 in Postgres 9.0. However, time constraints and concern
> > about backward compatibility has hampered this overhaul.
> >
> > At this point, backward compatibility seems to be hampering our ability
> > to move forward. I would like a vote that supports creation of a new
> > method for setting up streaming replication/point-in-time-recovery,
> > where backward compatibility is considered only where it is minimally
> > invasive.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
> >
> > + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
> +1
>
> I seemed to have lost track of the thread that this spawned out of. Is
> there a coherent plan for a way forward at this point? Last I recall
> it was Simon's plan vs Bruce's plan. I also seem to recall there was a
> patch out there too. I think it's even in the commitfest waiting on
> author.
>
> /me searches
>
> Here:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1026
>
> Perhaps we can get the two plans enumerated, vote, and then get a patch
> out?
>
> I'd really like to see this in 9.3, but not sure if that ship has
> sailed for this feature or not.
>
Yes, that is one of the most important patches in the list, and I could put
some effort in it for either review or coding.
It is an 17-month-old-patch, so of course it does not apply on master.
However before taking any actions, I would like to know the following:
- Simon, are you planning to update this patch?
- As we are rushing to finish wrapping up 9.3, do you consider it is too
late to begin that?

Thanks,
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com