On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I disagree at least with hot standby. I've been using/testing (as >> have others) it under a variety of workloads for several months now >> with no issues outside of corrected issues in the very early patches. >> Also, a relatively few amount of people update/build from cvs >> frequently so being committed late in the release cycle isn't as >> important as you are claiming...the real 'wider net' testing happens >> when the beta period begins. > > Update/build from CVS != Update/build from CVS + apply the replication > patches + test them explicitely. > > That said, I didn't have the time to test them myself so I feel also > responsible for that.
In the general case I think plenty of people update and build from CVS regularly. It's great that the FSM has been in for a couple months before the beta, we've uncovered a couple problems which could easily have slipped through the betas for example. In the case of hot standby and replication I'm not really sure that logic applies. It takes quite a lot of work to test these features and they don't turn up problems in other areas when you're not running them. So I doubt it would really have helped in this case. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
