| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby, recovery procs |
| Date: | 2009-02-26 09:20:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1235640002.16176.435.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:04 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> we keep track of which xids
> have already been "reported" in the WAL (similar to what you had in an
> earlier version of the patch)
You objected to doing exactly that earlier. Why is it OK to do it now
that you are proposing it?
You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.
We don't have time to make this change and then shake out everything
else that will break as a result. Are you suggesting that you will make
these changes and then follow up on all other breakages? Forcing this
request seems like a great way to cancel this patch, since it will be
marked as "author refused to make change".
You have spotted a problem elsewhere and I am working to fix that now.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-02-26 09:22:11 | Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets |
| Previous Message | Harald Armin Massa | 2009-02-26 09:14:55 | Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers |