On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try >>> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of >>> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current >>> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all >>> about. > >> That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but >> exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them >> seems OK. > > That's assuming they get as far as having a working libpq to try it > with. I'm worried about the possibility of inducing compile or link > failures. "It works in the backend" doesn't give me that much confidence > about it working in libpq. > > I'm all for this as a 9.1 submission, but let's not commit to trying to > debug it now. I would like a green buildfarm for awhile before we wrap > alpha4, and this sort of untested "it can't hurt" patch is exactly what > is likely to make things not green.
Mmm. OK, fair enough. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
