Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

2010/1/29 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>:
> 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.

+1.

Haven't we had enough communications failures with off-hackers groups
trying to come up with something only to have it not be agreed upon by
hackers later on?

(win32 would be the biggest thing so far, but it's not like we haven't
done it before in more cases)

>> 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).

Well, per some recent discussions, it seems small features are still
ok. But I doubt this qualifies as such.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/