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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-29 08:22:56|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication, and walsender during recovery|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-29 08:03:21|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict