Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution
Date: 2010-01-29 17:00:16
Message-ID: 4B631420.1020502@kaltenbrunner.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:20 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:10 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>> yeah and we keep finding major bugs nearly daily
>>> Facts, please?
>>>
>> 5 seconds of time spent on archives.postgresql.org show at least the 
>> following SR/HS related bugs in the last 7 days or so:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00400.php
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00410.php
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00396.php
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00323.php
>>
>> some of those you might call "minor" but they are bugs and given the 
>> current rate we are seeing them is imho a clear sign of "code by far not 
>> stable enough to consider new features that late in the cycle"
> 
> I don't think two very minor bugs in Hot Standby, reported and fixed 7
> days apart is any indication of instability. It isn't the "daily bugs
> reported" you suggested. Personally, I think it indicates quite the
> opposite - if those are the only bugs I can find now, I'm ecstatic.

well we have not even made a realistic release (not even an alpha!) with 
the current HS/SR code, we still have "must fix" issues on the table(for 
both SR and HS) AND we find/fix more than a bug every two days in those 
two features that are the cause for moving to 9.0.
If we want to release in anya realistic timeframe (and I recall you 
advocating for doing that in the past) we really need to wrap up what we 
have now, make it robust and see what we have left for all the further 
releases.

> 
> I think your argument does apply to Streaming Rep, at this point. We
> should consider releasing Alpha4 and then later going to Beta.

so you basically say that the current codebase(as a whole) is in need of 
stabilisation and we need to make the cut off and release alpha4 now?
Not sure how that fits into proposing new features for other parts of 
the system...

> 
> My point of view expressed here is not built in a few seconds, it is
> built on discussion and feedback over 18 months. The conflict issue was
> discussed by me with hackers at the May 2008 dev meeting. It should be
> improved upon in this release and it has been the main issue concerning
> the full range of people I have discussed HS with.

"in this release" refers to the current patch I guess - because there 
was no HS in older versions of pg :)


Stefan

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2010-01-29 17:09:02
Subject: Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-29 16:57:02
Subject: Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group