Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On 12/15/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> You are saying this is more massive than any other change we have made
>>> in the past?  In general, what need to be documented?
> 
>> I don't necessarily think it's because it's more massive than any chance we
>> have made before. I think it's more that this is something that we probably
>> should've had before, and just didn't.
> 
>> Right now we basically have a bulletpoint list of things that are new, with
>> a section about things that are incompatible.  Having an actual section
>> with more detailed descriptions of how to handle these changes would
>> definitely be a win. it shouldn't *just* be for these changes of course, it
>> should be for any other changes that are large enough to benefit from more
>> than a oneliner about the fact that they've changed.
> 
> Yeah, it seems to me that where this is ending up is "we may need to
> write more in the compatibility entries than we have in the past".
> I don't see any problem with that, particularly if someone other than
> Bruce or me is volunteering to write it ;-)

I'm up for writing it (with help from feature owners), provided that I
don't have to spend time arguing that it's not too long, or that I
should put it somewhere different.  So can we settle the "where"
question first?

-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)