On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need.
> > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some
> > users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that
> > would be affected, or how to count them.
> Perhaps so, but I would hope you would support what Heikki and others
> have been talking about as an option for replication. The 2% shouldn't
> hold back the remaining 98%.
So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that
or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
specifically said "get rid of" the existing functionality. I am
completely against the removal of an existing capability that is
critically important to many users.
If we can add new functionality that is a nice-to-have for a large
number of people without removing a feature that is critical to many
users, bring it on. If we can't do that, then I would oppose.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-02-24 20:21:18|
|Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2009-02-24 19:59:37|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs|