Re: Recovery Test Framework

On 1/12/09, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > However, we are getting off onto a tangent. I wasn't trying to start
> > a discussion about general project policies, but about the specific
> > status of this particular group of patches.
>
> I concur with Gregory on this one.
>
> IM(Very)HO, it's really too late in the cycle to commit these features
> (ie sync rep and hot standby). They are supposed to guarantee high
> availability and data security and they must be rock solid. Having
> them commited just before the release seems to me like a very
> dangerous way to publish them.

I disagree at least with hot standby. I've been using/testing (as
have others) it under a variety of workloads for several months now
with no issues outside of corrected issues in the very early patches.
Also, a relatively few amount of people update/build from cvs
frequently so being committed late in the release cycle isn't as
important as you are claiming...the real 'wider net' testing happens
when the beta period begins.

IMO, Simon needs to produce a patch (quickly), have it be reviewed,
and get it included/excluded based on its merits.

merlin