| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <niranjan(dot)k(at)nsn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |
| Date: | 2009-02-24 22:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1235516325.16176.257.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just
> not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is
> all about.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php
I don't think anyone who argued in favour of removal of existing system
was aware that we'd lose anything as a result. I think everybody
supports the easier-if-possible sentiment that Heikki was expressing; I
just don't want to let that be seen as agreement to remove, by default,
at a later time.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-02-24 23:41:35 | Re: Hot standby, recovery procs |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-02-24 22:24:11 | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |