On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as >> any clear showstoppers remain unresolved. > > I agree that it would be better not to commit as long as any of the > following are true: > > (1) There are any known issues which would break things for clusters > *not using* hot standby. > > (2) There isn't an easy way for to disable configuration of hot > standby. > > (3) There is significant doubt that the vast majority of the patch > will be useful in the eventually-enabled final solution. > > If none of these are true, I'm not sure what the down side of a commit > is.
Well, I think you wouldn't want to commit something that enabled Hot Standby but caused Hot Standby queries to give wrong answers, or didn't even allow some/all queries to be executed. That's fairly pointless, and might mislead users into thinking we had a feature when we really didn't. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
