On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> >> [This is an open item for 9.0, hence the response to an apparently old
>> >> hackers thread]
>> > Thanks for the reply; 9.0 open item removed.
>> I think you misread his reply. Please put that back.
> OK, I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to.
I re-read it too and I don't understand either. This is LISTED as an
open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I
think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was
discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is
apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me
that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it.
Or am I confused?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-04-19 15:02:10|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-04-19 14:55:32|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop |