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

Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 08:20:19
Message-ID: 1d4e0c11001290020i4587897xdeb42c2868be9ced@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that
> to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As
> mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional
> feedback and the result was very clear.

I don't have a technical opinion about this problem yet as I haven't
tested HS+SR yet but I'm not sure it's a good idea to base technical
decisions and priorities on user polls (I'm pretty sure most of them
don't use HS+SR as much as Heikki these days).
If you ask people what they want in their future cars, they won't
answer they want wheels or an engine: it's something obvious for them.
AFAICS (but I might be wrong), you asked this question to people who
are interested in HS+SR but don't have any idea of what it's like to
use HS+SR daily with or without this limitation.

There are perhaps better arguments for not doing it but this one seems
a bit weird to me.

-- 
Guillaume

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-29 08:22:56
Subject: Re: Streaming replication, and walsender during recovery
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-29 08:03:21
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

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