From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Date: | 2007-10-10 14:41:44 |
Message-ID: | 200710101441.l9AEfiD09170@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Agreed. I think if we had followed procedure the code would have been
accepted post-beta1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > All objections have been procedural, AFICS.
>
> Lets not talk about mistakes we made for a moment.
>
> And I agree with the rest of the objections in general. But I'd
> like to summarise why I still hope the exception can be made
> even this late.
>
> This is directly related to attitude to the first submission to 8.2:
> "unless Slony uses it we are not interested". Now is the only
> moment which won't come again in several years that it's possible
> to unify txid handling in Slony and Skytools and also make the
> functionality available to broader public.
>
> This due to the fact that Slony 2.0 which will be released with 8.3
> will not support PostgreSQL version lower then 8.3.
>
> Yes, we realized the opportunity too late and now it's question
> if PostgreSQL is flexible enough to react to this.
>
> Note that rejection now does not cause any big problems to either
> Slony and Skytools, we will keep our internal versions of the module,
> invisible to anybody else.
>
> But the potential use of the module is huge - it's killer feature is
> that it allows to implement high-performance multi-reader / multi-writer
> queues inside database. Well, I know this sounds unimpressive, queues
> do not belong to standard toolbox when doing database developement.
> And those who have tried to implement them, carry a "avoid at any cost" tag,
> because thus far there has not been a way to implement robust and
> well-perfoming queue inside general-purpose database.
>
> Now txid can change that. E.g. in Skype, it has become irreplaceable
> tool for coordinating work between several databases. Here we are
> probably going overboard with usage of queues...
>
> --
> marko
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-10 14:42:53 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-10 14:37:48 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-10 14:42:53 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-10-10 14:37:48 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |