On 9 April 2016 at 11:57, Stas Kelvich <s.kelv...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > > On 09 Apr 2016, at 03:05, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > CommitFest 2016-03 is now closed. I have moved "Twophase transactions > > on slave", "Partial sort", and "amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking > > tool)" to the next CommitFest in accordance with the policy previous > > set by the release management team. I have left "Replace buffer > > manager spinlock with atomic operations" active in the current > > CommitFest because it was granted an extension. The RMT has received > > Tom's request for an extension on the "Unique Joins" patch but has not > > yet reached a decision. > > > > Aren’t "Twophase transactions on slave” falling into category of patches > that fixes > previously introduces behaviour? |'m not trying to argue with RMT > decision, but just > want to ensure that it was thoughtful decision, taking into account that > absence of that > patch in release can cause problems with replication in some cases as it > was warned > by Jesper[1] and Andres[2]. > > [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5707a8cc.6080...@redhat.com > > [2] > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-cf572a2ff...@anarazel.de It's a longstanding problem and it would be good if we had an improvement. I can't commit a patch that has a reported bug against it, nor can we fix the problem if we can't reproduce it. If we do get a committable patch, that is then the time to make a case to RMT, but not before. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
