On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:56 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I think we should extend the time available to make sure we have a
>> sensible set of features for 9.0. The heat of this discussion tells me
>> that we are going to be lacking features that are must-have to someone,
>> whether or not they are in the majority.
> Missing release dates because of some patch that isn't done is something
> the community has been trying to get away from, aggressively. The way
> this is supposed to work is:
> We have a release date
> Features that aren't going to make that date, don't.
> We release
Exactly. It would be nice to see 9.0 come out in 2010, and we're not
going to get there unless we start fixing the issues that are actually
release-blockers, rather than adding new features. Hot Standby was
committed with at least one known release blocker (VACUUM FULL) on the
assumption that that release blocker would be fixed by the committer
who introduced it (isn't that the rule?). Two months on, there is
zero sign of any activity on that front, and instead we're now being
bombarded with a series of other patches that fix issues that are not
release-blockers under the theory that the feature isn't good enough
to be used without them. If that's really true, it wasn't ready for
commit in the first place.
If this were any other patch, I'd propose reverting it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2010-01-29 17:31:26|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict
|Previous:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2010-01-29 17:23:06|
|Subject: Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)|