On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try
>>> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of
>>> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current
>>> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all
>> That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but
>> exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them
>> seems OK.
> That's assuming they get as far as having a working libpq to try it
> with. I'm worried about the possibility of inducing compile or link
> failures. "It works in the backend" doesn't give me that much confidence
> about it working in libpq.
> I'm all for this as a 9.1 submission, but let's not commit to trying to
> debug it now. I would like a green buildfarm for awhile before we wrap
> alpha4, and this sort of untested "it can't hurt" patch is exactly what
> is likely to make things not green.
Mmm. OK, fair enough.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-15 16:21:04|
|Subject: Re: Streaming Replication on win32 |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-15 16:15:20|
|Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |