Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <niranjan(dot)k(at)nsn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches
Date: 2009-02-24 22:58:45
Message-ID: 1235516325.16176.257.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:

> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
> not remembering.  I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
> all about.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php

I don't think anyone who argued in favour of removal of existing system
was aware that we'd lose anything as a result. I think everybody
supports the easier-if-possible sentiment that Heikki was expressing; I
just don't want to let that be seen as agreement to remove, by default,
at a later time.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-02-24 23:41:35
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-02-24 22:24:11
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group