On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Exactly. It would be nice to see 9.0 come out in 2010, and we're not
> going to get there unless we start fixing the issues that are actually
> release-blockers, rather than adding new features. Hot Standby was
> committed with at least one known release blocker (VACUUM FULL) on the
> assumption that that release blocker would be fixed by the committer
> who introduced it (isn't that the rule?). Two months on, there is
> zero sign of any activity on that front, and instead we're now being
> bombarded with a series of other patches that fix issues that are not
> release-blockers under the theory that the feature isn't good enough
> to be used without them. If that's really true, it wasn't ready for
> commit in the first place.
> If this were any other patch, I'd propose reverting it.
I would suggest that if we don't see activity on the release blockers,
pretty much stat... we revert it.
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-29 17:55:05|
|Subject: Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?) |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-29 17:23:46|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution|