Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:12 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order
>>> until forced to stop.
>> we are past the point of adding new features for 9.0 imho
> So presumably we cannot add the new feature to start hot standby at
> shutdown checkpoints then either?
well as far as I recall that ones has been proposed much earlier than
mid of december(like the patch in discussion here) and I agree with
heikki that I'm not clear on what your actual objections to that patch
were - care to provide a link to the archives please?
>>> If you or anyone else believes features are essential, then either add
>>> them yourselves or have the courage to stand up and say the release
>>> should be delayed so that I can. To do otherwise is to admit you do not
>>> actually consider them essential. It cannot be both ways.
>> bugfix and stabilization mode is what we are in now (except for the
>> stuff that already made it into the commitfest).
> That's where we'd like to be, but these new features have not been in
> the tree long enough for what you say to be the actual position. We can
> pretend it is, but that doesn't make it so.
Not sure I follow (maybe because I'm not a native speaker) but are you
trying to say that we can simply add new features late in the release
cycle to stuff commited because it is not long in the tree instead of
focusing stabilizing what we have?
If you are so sure that we NEED those features to be releaseworthy -
maybe it was premature to commit HS and SR for this cycle?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-29 10:33:02|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict
|Previous:||From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner||Date: 2010-01-29 10:20:13|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution|