Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 07:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> >> So what was the clear result?
> >
> > I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
> > User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities
> > quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to know more about the wishes of
> > users than they do themselves isn't hugely impressive.
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all.

I am busy working on the right features for the most number of people,
as expressed to me. I accept there are people that disagree and I am
sorry for that. Others are welcome to add code to do the things I will
not be doing through lack of time, if they are not satisfied with my
priority.

I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a
sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me
that we are going to be lacking features that are must-have to someone,
whether or not they are in the majority.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com