Re: Hot standby, recovery procs

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> > You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.
>
> Simplicity.

You used that argument in January to explain why the coupling should be
reduced and now the same argument to put it back again.

> > 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".
>
> I'm not suggesting anything to be canceled. I simply think these are
> changes that should be made. I wish you could make them, because that
> means less work for me. But if you're not willing to, I can pick it up
> myself.

When you review my code, you make many useful suggestions and I am very
thankful. Testing can't find out some of those things. My feeling is
that you are now concentrating on things that are optional, yet will
have a huge potential for negative impact. If I could please draw your
review efforts to other parts of the patch, I would be happy to return
to these parts later.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support