From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada(at)kokolink(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: alpha3 release schedule? |
Date: | 2009-12-19 18:59:45 |
Message-ID: | 4B2D22A1.3030600@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
>> Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada(at)kokolink(dot)net> writes:
>>> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
>>> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
>>> is must-fix or not.
>>> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
>>> but more likely to happen.
>>> If you leave this problem, for example, any long-running transactions,
>>> holding any cursors in whatever tables, have a possibility of freezing
>>> whole recovery work in HotStandby node until the transaction commit.
>> Seems like something we should fix ASAP, but I do not see why it need
>> hold up an alpha release. Alpha releases are expected to have bugs,
>> and this one doesn't look like it would stop people from finding
>> other bugs.
>
> At the beginning of this commit fest, Heikki said in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00914.php
>
>> Of course there should be several phases! We've *already* punted a lot
>> of stuff from this first increment we're currently working on. The
>> criteria for getting this first phase committed is: could we release
>> with no further changes?
>
> And other patches seem to be checked with similar criteria, as long as
> I read mails in this list. So I wanted to know whether the problem is
> must-fix, and if it is, why the criteria has been changed during the
> commit fest.
Well, that was the criteria I used to decide whether to commit or not.
Not everyone agreed to begin with, and the reason I used that criteria
was a selfish one: I didn't want to be forced to fix loose ends after
the commitfest myself. The big reason for that was that I didn't know
how much time I would have for that. I have no complaints about Simon's
commit. Knowing that I'm not on the hook to close the loose ends, I'm
very happy that it's finally in. (That doesn't mean that I'll stop
paying attention to this patch; I will do as much as I have time to.)
Regarding the bugs you found, I put them on the TODO list at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO, under the must-fix
category. I think they need to be fixed before final release, but
there's no need to delay the alpha release for them.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2009-12-19 19:13:02 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
Previous Message | Caleb Welton | 2009-12-19 18:56:16 | Re: About "Allow VIEW/RULE recompilation when the underlying tables change" |