| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2009-11-15 19:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0911151138s30155387i712eecc638498c6e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> You agree there should be two phases?
>
I don't understand this repeated suggestion of "phases". Nobody's
every suggested that we would refuse to add new features to HS after
the initial commit or the 8.5 release. Of course there should be later
features if you or anyone else is interested in working on them.
Or are asking whether we should commit it before it's a usable subset
of the functionality? Personally I am in favour of earlier more
fine-grained commits but I think the horse has left the stable on that
one. We have a usable subset of the functionality in this patch
already, don't we?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-15 19:39:04 | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-11-15 19:37:59 | Re: Hot standby, race condition between recovery snapshot and commit |