On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Greg Stark<gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If Hot Standby were ready to be applied, I would be all in favor of >> that, but in fact I don't believe that's the case. There's been no >> movement on Hot Standby since February > > Well Simon was happy with it as submitted so unless people are reading > the patch and giving feedback or using it and running into problems I > wouldn't really expect him to make changes. > > That's part of the problem with leaving patches outside the source > tree while they're being developed. It's part of what led us to > suddenly have a massive reviewing job and making big changes in the > final commitfest. > > If we apply things earlier in the cycle we can be a lot less > conservative. We don't have to be 100% sure everything was dealt with > in a single commit.
+1 (I'm all for getting HS in people's hands ASAP) Given that there is also a lot of work on synchronous replication, is it better to get the HS in so the SR stuff can use that as a baseline, or to triage in both patches together? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
