Re: disposition of remaining patches

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Synchronous replication.  Splitting up this patch has allowed some
>> On top of 4 listed reviewers I know Dan Farina is poking at the last update,
>> so we may see one more larger report on top of what's already shown up.  And
>> Jaime keeps kicking the tires too.  What Simon was hoping is that a week of
>> others looking at this would produce enough feedback that it might be
>> possible to sweep the remaining issues up soon after he's back.  It looks to
>> me like that's about when everything else that's still open will probably
>> settle too.
>
> Besides some of the fixable issues, I am going to have to echo
> Robert's sentiments about a few kinks that go beyond mechanism in the
> syncrep patch: in particular, it will *almost* solve the use case I
> was hoping to solve: a way to cleanly perform planned switchovers
> between machines with minimal downtime and no lost data. But there are
> a couple of holes I have thought of so far:

Well, just because the patch doesn't solve every use case isn't a
reason not to go forward with it - we can always add more options
later - but I have to admit that I'm kind of alarmed about the number
of bugs reported so far.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company