On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now
> and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that
> or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san
> specifically said "get rid of" the existing functionality. I am
> completely against the removal of an existing capability that is
> critically important to many users.
Though my description may be confusing, I don't mean to remove
any existing features unless necessary. I just said get rid of
file-based log shipping part only from my patch.
> If we can add new functionality that is a nice-to-have for a large
> number of people without removing a feature that is critical to many
> users, bring it on. If we can't do that, then I would oppose.
Yes, I also think so.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-02-24 20:25:28|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-02-24 20:08:02|
|Subject: Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches|