Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On Sunday 09 May 2010 01:34:18 Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I think everyone agrees the current code is unusable, per Heikki's >> comment about a WAL file arriving after a period of no WAL activity, and >> look how long it took our group to even understand why that fails so >> badly.
> To be honest its not *that* hard to simply make sure generating wal regularly > to combat that. While it surely aint a nice workaround its not much of a > problem either. Well, that's dumping a kluge onto users; but really that isn't the point. What we have here is a badly designed and badly implemented feature, and we need to not ship it like this so as to not institutionalize a bad design. I like the proposal of a boolean because it provides only the minimal feature set of two cases that are both clearly needed and easily implementable. Whatever we do later is certain to provide a superset of those two cases. If we do something else (and that includes my own proposal of a straight lock timeout), we'll be implementing something we might wish to take back later. Taking out features after they've been in a release is very hard, even if we realize they're badly designed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers