| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
| Date: | 2009-11-20 17:29:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1258738155.2851.21.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 17:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > So I'm in favor of committing part of the HS code even if there are
> > known failure conditions, as long as those conditions are well-defined.
>
> If we're thinking of committing something that is known broken, I would
> want to have a clearly defined and trust-inspiring escape strategy.
If it is broken, we shouldn't commit it at all. Commit it to some
"other" git branch and call it, postgresql-alpha3-riggs-heikki if you
must but keep it out of core.
>
> I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as
> any clear showstoppers remain unresolved.
>
Agreed.
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-11-20 17:30:36 | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-20 16:54:09 | Prettification versus dump safety |