On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 14:06 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If you insist, I'll work out a patch to send a signal to startup process > after every fsync(), but it really doesn't seem very important given > that there's always a delay there anyway. > > > We both know you can fix these things easily and quickly. Please do so. > > That's a plural form. What's the other thing you're referring to?
I mentioned 3 things right here: * signal * parameter to control delay (2 separate delays) * docs Many other things have been mentioned on other posts and I am unhappy with the answer "lets defer everything til 9.1". Yes, some things need to be deferred, but not everything. I feel for you both as developers, and apologise if you don't like what I say, but we need to get things into a better state for 9.0. Please. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
