Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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