Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:09 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > It will get done. It is not the very first thing on my to-do list.
> >
> > ??? What is then?
> >
> > If it's not the first thing on your priority list, with 9.0 getting
> > later by the day, maybe we should leave it to Robert and Simon, who *do*
> > seem to have it first on *their* list?
> >
> > I swear, when Simon was keeping his branch to himself in August everyone
> > was on his case. It sure seems like Tom is doing exactly the same thing.
>
> Hmmm, yes, looks that way. At that time I was actively working on the
> code, not just locking it to prevent other activity.
>
> The only urgency on my part here was to fulfil my responsibility to the
> project.

Simon, you have a very legitimate concern. I phoned Tom and he is
planning to start working on the max_standby_delay tomorrow. I am
unclear how it is different from your version, but I hope once Tom is
done we can review his work and decide how to proceed. The fact that we
allowed Tom this huge amount of time to submit an alternative patch is
unusual and hopefully rare.

FYI, Tom and I are hoping to work through all the outstanding issues
before we package up 9.0 beta3 on Thursday, July 8.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +