From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: commit_delay, siblings |
Date: | 2005-06-28 15:56:22 |
Message-ID: | 20050628155622.GA21142@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:35:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>> If we yank them ( and I agree) I think we have to do it before feature
> >>> freeze.
> >>
> >> I believe that we have consensus to yank them. Hans says that he did
> >> extensive testing back as far as 7.4 and the options had no effect.
>
> > My opinion is, we'd better test with at least 8.0, or even better with
> > current. I think I can do the testing after Jul 1 if those features
> > are remained. I have a dual Xeon system with a 15000RPM SCSI disk
> > system in my office.
>
> Well, the proposal is on the table, and the implementation is pretty
> obvious. If you want to be sticky about the feature freeze rule,
> someone could generate a diff to remove the variables and post it to
> -patches before July 1, and then it would be fully per-rules to evaluate
> it after July 1.
That'd be needlessly legalistic ... I propose we stick to the "spirit"
of the rules, rather than the letter.
> I vote not to require ourselves to go through that pushup.
I agree.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"Cada quien es cada cual y baja las escaleras como quiere" (JMSerrat)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-28 16:04:14 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-06-28 15:48:34 | Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 |