On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> This is exactly why I'm not keen on checksums for 9.2. We've reached >> the point where the attention on the checksum patch is pushing aside >> other patches which are more ready and have had more work. > > IMO the reason why it's sucking so much attention is precisely that it's > not close to being ready to commit. But this is well off topic for the > thread we're on. If you want to propose booting checksums from > consideration for 9.2, let's have that discussion on the checksum > thread.
Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the conversation until the patch is rejected, but that's not the same thing. The main elements of the patch have been working for around 7 weeks by now. I'm not sure how this topic is even raised here, since the patches are wholly and completely separate, apart from the minor and irrelevant point that the patch authors both work for 2ndQuadrant. If that matters at all, I'll be asking how and why. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
