Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres@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 <peter_e@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