On 1/15/11 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> It is really already too late for us to be seriously considering
> integrating sync rep into 9.1. It will lead to another enormous beta
> period during which the tree will be closed to new patches and
> everyone will complain, or else we'll open the tree for 9.2
> development and a different though overlapping set of people will
> complain about that, but if I try to bring down the gavel and actually
> insist that we don't consider sync rep, then a third, different, also
> overlapping set of people will complain about that.
Given that people are going to complain regardless, that gives you a lot
of freedom, no?
I'm more liberal; if we have a working-with-minor-bugs version of Sync
Rep by 2/15, I'm OK with it being in 9.1. However, if major issues
remain outstanding ... or major disputes on features/API ... then boot it.
It's really up to Simon/Heikki/Fujii as to whether that's a realistic
goal. Certainly there's been a lot of work to *simplify* Synch Rep this
year.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
