Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby
Date: 2009-11-15 22:17:05
Message-ID: 24573.1258323425@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> So I'm in favor of committing part of the HS code even if there are
> known failure conditions, as long as those conditions are well-defined.

If we're thinking of committing something that is known broken, I would
want to have a clearly defined and trust-inspiring escape strategy.
"We can always revert the patch later" inspires absolutely zero
confidence here, because in a patch this large there are always going to
be overlaps with other later patches. If it gets to be February and HS
is still unshippable, reverting is going to be a tricky and risky
affair.

I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as
any clear showstoppers remain unresolved.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Jurd 2009-11-15 22:18:36 Re: patch - Report the schema along table name in a referential failure error message
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-15 22:09:55 Re: pgsql: /home/peter/commit-msg