Re: Hot standby, recovery procs

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery procs
Date: 2009-02-26 09:20:02
Message-ID: 1235640002.16176.435.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:04 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> we keep track of which xids
> have already been "reported" in the WAL (similar to what you had in an
> earlier version of the patch)

You objected to doing exactly that earlier. Why is it OK to do it now
that you are proposing it?

You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes.

We don't have time to make this change and then shake out everything
else that will break as a result. Are you suggesting that you will make
these changes and then follow up on all other breakages? Forcing this
request seems like a great way to cancel this patch, since it will be
marked as "author refused to make change".

You have spotted a problem elsewhere and I am working to fix that now.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-02-26 09:22:11 Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets
Previous Message Harald Armin Massa 2009-02-26 09:14:55 Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers