On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> The attached patch merges synchronous_replication into synchronous_commit. >> Committed > > Without discussion? I would think that this patch is stepping on the > other one toes and that maybe would need to make a decision about sync > rep behavior before to commit this change.
Err, I thought we did. We had a protracted discussion of Simon's patch: 9 people expressed an opinion; 6 were opposed. With respect to this patch, the basic design was discussed previously and Simon, Fujii Masao, Greg Stark and myself all were basically in favor of something along these lines, and to the best of my recollection no one spoke against it. > Maybe it's just me, but I'm struggling to understand current community > processes and decisions. Well, I've already spent a fair amount of time trying to explain my understanding of it, and for my trouble I got accused of being long-winded. Which is probably true, but makes me think I should probably keep this response short. I'm not unwilling to talk about it, though, and perhaps someone else would like to chime in. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
