On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Fujii Masao<masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The attached latest patch provides this capability. You can easily set up the
> synch rep according to the following procedure.
This patch no longer applies cleanly. Can you rebase and resubmit it
for the upcoming CommitFest? It might also be good to go through and
clean up the various places where you have trailing whitespace and/or
spaces preceding tabs.
It seems this will be one of the "big" patches for the upcoming
CommitFest. Hot Standby seems to be off the table, because Simon has
indicated that he thinks Synch Rep should go first, and Heikki has
indicated that he's willing to review and commit, but not also play
Given that this is a substantial patch, I have a couple of questions
about strategy. First, I am wondering whether this patch should be
reviewed (and committed) as a whole, or whether there are distinct
chunks of it that should be reviewed and committed separately -
particularly the signal handling piece, which AIUI is independently
useful. I note that it seems to be included in the tarball as a
separate patch file, which is very useful.
Second, I am wondering whether Heikki feels that it would be useful to
assign round-robin reviewers for this patch, or whether he's going to
be the principal reviewer himself. We could assign either a reviewer
(or reviewers) to the whole patch, or we could assign reviewers to
particular chunks of the patch, such as the signal handling piece.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-07-03 02:07:24|
|Subject: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-07-03 01:35:57|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] SE-PostgreSQL Updates rev.2096|