Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> So what was the clear result?
>
> I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
> User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities
> quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to know more about the wishes of
> users than they do themselves isn't hugely impressive.

huh? traditionally discussions of that kind had to happen on -hackers
and not in some online place some unnamed people attended.

>
> There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order
> until forced to stop.

we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho

>
> If you or anyone else believes features are essential, then either add
> them yourselves or have the courage to stand up and say the release
> should be delayed so that I can. To do otherwise is to admit you do not
> actually consider them essential. It cannot be both ways.

bugfix and stabilization mode is what we are in now (except for the
stuff that already made it into the commitfest).

Stefan