From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
Date: | 2009-01-12 17:38:07 |
Message-ID: | 8763kkl91c.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Yeah, but there are already a number of things in 8.4 that are killer
> features for various applications --- window functions and WITH to take
> two recently-committed examples. Should we sit on those for however
> long it will take to make replication release-worthy?
Do we know it's not release-worthy now? From what I see Heikki is proposing
refactorings which improve the code but hasn't found anything actually broken.
I'm all for cleaner simpler code -- especially in critical backup processes
since simpler means safer -- but just because there are better ways to do
things doesn't mean the current code isn't acceptable.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 17:41:01 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-12 17:37:44 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |