| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2009-11-16 16:13:23 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070911160813w46bc0b42x1f5c28517cd6742c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as
>> any clear showstoppers remain unresolved.
>
> I agree that it would be better not to commit as long as any of the
> following are true:
>
> (1) There are any known issues which would break things for clusters
> *not using* hot standby.
>
> (2) There isn't an easy way for to disable configuration of hot
> standby.
>
> (3) There is significant doubt that the vast majority of the patch
> will be useful in the eventually-enabled final solution.
>
> If none of these are true, I'm not sure what the down side of a commit
> is.
Well, I think you wouldn't want to commit something that enabled Hot
Standby but caused Hot Standby queries to give wrong answers, or
didn't even allow some/all queries to be executed. That's fairly
pointless, and might mislead users into thinking we had a feature when
we really didn't.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-11-16 16:25:31 | Re: What is the correct way to extract values from an int8 array in SPI? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-11-16 16:07:52 | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |