Re: Recovery Test Framework

"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I disagree at least with hot standby. I've been using/testing (as
>> have others) it under a variety of workloads for several months now
>> with no issues outside of corrected issues in the very early patches.

> My point is that what Simon currently has (and so what you tested) is
> different from what is going to be commited (note the "final" in what
> I wrote) and I suspect there will be a certain number of non
> negligible adjustments (see the last discussions between Simon and
> Heikki and I don't think Tom has taken a look at these patches yet).

The thing that's disturbing me is that (to judge by what I've been
seeing on the mailing list) there's been a steady stream of "non
negligible adjustments" for the past two months. That's good from
the standpoint that problems are getting found and fixed, but it's
not giving me any warm fuzzies about the code being ready to go.

Basically I think we are up against the same type of project management
decision we've had several times before: are we willing to slip the
8.4 release schedule for however long it will take for hot standby
and the other replication-related features to be ready? At this point
I think there can be no question that it will not be a small slip;
in fact I'm not even prepared to guess at how long it will take.

regards, tom lane