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

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.

Thanks.