| From: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 17:02:47 |
| Message-ID: | EA5BC07A-100F-4B91-B0D1-86D027719C0B@pointblue.com.pl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2009-01-12, at 16:48, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 11:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Basically I think we are up against the same type of project
>>> management
>>> decision we've had several times before: are we willing to slip the
>>> 8.4 release schedule for however long it will take for hot standby
>>> and the other replication-related features to be ready?
>>
>> I would certainly not like to see 8.4 slip.
>
> I would. PostgreSQL is not a commercial application which has to be
> released on schedule to satisfy shareholders - it's an Open Source
> project that aims to provide it's users with useful features. We have
> two extremely useful features here (hot standby and sync replication)
> which together will make this a killer release for many people - we
> can delay a month or two as required to polish and get them ready for
> release, or decide we're willing to wait another 12 - 14 months for
> them to be available for end users.
>
> I'd much rather see them included than deferred (particularly hot
> standby, parts of which have been awaiting review for months now
> anyway, through no fault of Simons).
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-12 17:07:42 | Re: pg_restore -1 vs -C and -c |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-01-12 16:59:26 | Re: pg_restore -1 vs -C and -c |