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

Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?
Date: 2010-12-30 11:42:45
Message-ID: AANLkTimYuaD0emKozSOaoEsZq1Qy+N1VmHNEO+_V+wnn@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 19:42, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Is it really stable enough for bin/?  My impression of the state of
>> affairs is that there is nothing whatsoever about replication that
>> is really stable yet.
>
> Well, that's not stopping us from shipping a core feature called "replication".  I'll defer to others on how mature pg_streamrecv is, but if it's no worse than replication in general I think putting it in bin/ is the right thing to do.

It has had less eyes on it, which puts it worse off than general
replication. OTOH, it's a lot simper code, which puts it better.

Either way, as long as it gets those eyes before release if we put it
in, it shouldn't be worse off than general replication.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2010-12-30 11:46:58
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-12-30 11:41:35
Subject: Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?

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