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

Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution
Date: 2010-01-29 16:42:03
Message-ID: 1264783323.24669.17741.camel@ebony (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:

> You said "I think we should extend the time available to make sure we
> have a sensible set of features for 9.0."  Perhaps part of the problem
> is that I couldn't understand what your patch did from the description
> you posted and can't evaluate whether it's fixing a problem that makes
> the current feature set incoherent. Can you explain what it does in
> more detail so we can understand why it's necessary for a sensible set
> of features?

I'll break down the patch into two pieces to make it easier to review,
and add more description, as you suggest.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2010-01-29 16:48:56
Subject: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG Re: out-of-scope cursor errors
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-01-29 16:38:10
Subject: Strange heuristic in analyze.c

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