On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 17:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The points appear to be directed at "quorum commit", which is a name > > I've used. But most of the points apply more to Fujii's patch than my > > own. I can only presume that Josh wants to prevent us from adopting a > > design that allows sync against multiple standbys. > > This looks to me like a cheap shot that doesn't advance the > discussion. You are the first to complain when people don't take your > ideas as seriously as you feel they should.
Whatever are you talking about? This is a technical discussion. I'm checking what Josh actually means by Quorum Commit, since regrettably the points fall very badly against Fujii's patch. Josh has echoed some points of mine and Jeff's point about dangerous behaviour blows a hole a mile wide in the justification for standby.conf etc.. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
