| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Date: | 2009-05-13 18:46:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1242240395.3843.472.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct.
My suggestion was designed to provide this. A misunderstanding.
> And its existence as a
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
> about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed if
> it were to get pulled.
If we cannot make it correct within core, then I will make it correct
somewhere else, beta or not. Other than that, I have no wish to remove
it from contrib.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-13 18:53:44 | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-13 18:39:34 | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |