Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 21:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Sorry, I've been a bit distracted by other responsibilities (libtiff
>>> security issues for Red Hat, if you must know).  I'll get on it shortly.
>
>> I don't think the PostgreSQL project should wait any longer on this. If
>> it does we risk loss of quality in final release, assuming no slippage.
>
> It will get done.  It is not the very first thing on my to-do list.

That's apparent. On June 9th, you wrote "Yes, I'll get with it ...";
on June 16th, you wrote "I'll get on it shortly." Two weeks later
you're backing off from "shortly" to "eventually". It is unfair to
the community to assert a vigorous opinion of how something should be
handled in the code and then refuse to commit to a time frame for
providing a patch. It is even more unreasonable to commit to
providing a timely patch (twice) and then fail to do so. We are
trying to finalize a release here, and you've made it clear you think
this code needs revision before then. I respect your opinion, but not
your right to make the project release timetable dependent on your own
schedule, and not your right to shut other people out of working on
the issues you've raised.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company