On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 23:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Quorum commit is definitely an extra knob, IMHO. > > No, its about three less, as I have explained. > > Explain your position, don't just demand others listen.
OK. In words of one syllable, your way still has all the same knobs, plus some more. You sketched out a design which still had a per-standby setting for each standby, but IN ADDITION had a setting for a setting to control quorum commit[1]. You also argued that we needed four options for each transaction rather than three[2], and that we need a userset GUC to control the behavior on a per-transaction basis[3]. Not one other person has agreed that we need all of these options in the first version of the patch. We don't. We can start with a sync rep patch that does ONE thing and does it well, and we can add these other things later. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb when I say that it is easier to get a smaller patch committed than it is to get a bigger one committed, and it is less likely to have bugs. [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01347.php [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01333.php [3] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01334.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers