On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > I guarantee that if that proposal goes in, people will complain about > > that also. Last minute behaviour changes are bad news. I don't object to > > adding something, just don't take anything away. It's not like the code > > for it is pages long or anything. > > I have to disagree with this. If it goes into 9.0 this way then we're > signing up to support it for *years*. With something as fragile as the > existing setup (as outlined by Tom), that's probably not a good idea. > We've not signed up to support the existing behaviour at all yet- > alpha's aren't a guarentee of what we're going to release.
That's a great argument, either way. We will have to live with 9.0 for many years and so that's why I mention having both. Make a choice either way and we take a risk. Why? > > The trade off is HA or queries and two modes make sense for user choice. > > The option isn't being thrown out, it's just being made to depend on > something which is alot easier to measure while still being very useful > for the trade-off you're talking about. I don't really see a downside > to this, to be honest. Perhaps you could speak to the specific user > experience difference that you think there would be from this change? > > +1 from me on Tom's proposal. -- 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
