From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
Date: | 2009-11-15 23:34:31 |
Message-ID: | 1798C087-9906-40A1-A744-01A59716865F@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 15, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm in favor of committing part of the HS code even if there are
>> known failure conditions, as long as those conditions are well-defined.
>
> If we're thinking of committing something that is known broken, I would
> want to have a clearly defined and trust-inspiring escape strategy.
> "We can always revert the patch later" inspires absolutely zero
> confidence here, because in a patch this large there are always going to
> be overlaps with other later patches. If it gets to be February and HS
> is still unshippable, reverting is going to be a tricky and risky
> affair.
>
> I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as
> any clear showstoppers remain unresolved.
If ever there were an argument for topic branches, *this is it*.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-15 23:38:18 | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-11-15 23:23:34 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |