Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:13 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think the big frustration is that this issue was first brought up
March 25 and it took two months to resolve it, at which point we were in
beta. I think many hoped a better idea would emerge but often that just
doesn't happen and we have to do the best fix we can and move on.
I agree, very frustrating. Why do you bring it up again now?
Wny not? We are not going to improve unless we face our faults.
Oh, and I am backlogged on email, which is why I didn't mention it a
week ago when this thread was active (which I think was your point). :-)
Did you catch up the backlog far enough to see that Simon coded and I
committed the patch to add "recovery_end_command" just before beta2? So
it's in 8.4 now
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20090514203109.8eba2754...@cvs.postgresql.org).
I agree we could've should've handled this more promptly, and I'll take
my part of the blame for that. I let the various proposed patches sit
for long times before reviewing them thoroughly, partly because I was
busy and partly because I didn't feel good about the proposed
approaches. I think what went in in the end is pretty simple and robust,
but it's a shame we had to rush to get it into beta2, after sitting on
our thumbs for months.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
