Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby

On 11/15/09 12:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 22:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Right now, I don't know which you
>>> consider to be the must-fix issues, hence the thread.
>> Ok, could you tackle the b-tree vacuum bug, where we neglect to pin the
>> index pages after the last b-tree vacuum record? Thanks.
>
> That's all? You sure?

Just speaking from a user/tester perspective, a HS with known caveats
and failure conditions would be acceptable in Alpha3. It would be
better than waiting for Alpha4.

Not only would getting some form of HS into Alpha3 get people testing HS
and finding failure conditions we didn't think of eariler, it will also
inspire people to compile and test the Alphas, period. Right now the
whole Alpha testing program seems to have only attracted The Usual
Contributors, despite efforts to publicize it.

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.

(and applause to Simon and Heikki for continuing to put noses to
grinstones on this, and Robert for keeping an eye on the schedule)

--Josh Berkus