| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca, stark(at)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-02-19 23:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJqHf5K0ERVhwX+DBBpb=c5bOVe-YWr+K=7NVHRwaTy=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To me, it seems that you are applying a double standard. You have
> twice attempted to insist that I do extra work to make major features
> that I worked on - unlogged tables and index-only scans - work in Hot
> Standby mode, despite the existence of significant technological
> obstacles. But when it comes to your own feature, you simply state
> that it cannot be done, and therefore we need not do it. Of course,
> this feature, like those, CAN be made to work.
Vitriol aside, If you would be so kind as to explain how it is
possible, as you claim, I'll look into making it work.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-19 23:42:03 | Re: Future of our regular expression code |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-02-19 22:56:50 | Re: Reducing bgwriter wakeups |