On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item.
> > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something
> > a TODO item.
> There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a
> consensus solution yet. You should not imagine that it's gospel.
Well, I don't, though many think it is and some have been
surprised/annoyed to find out that implementing a TODO item doesn't mean
automatic acceptance of the idea, let alone the code (not myself, I
hasten to add).
> At the same time, it'd be better if this item were worded more like
> "investigate this issue" rather than presupposing a particular
> form of answer.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-06-01 20:02:19|
|Subject: Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoringfrom backup|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-06-01 19:41:59|
|Subject: Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem |