Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:20 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that
> > to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As
> > mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional
> > feedback and the result was very clear.
>
> I don't have a technical opinion about this problem yet as I haven't
> tested HS+SR yet but I'm not sure it's a good idea to base technical
> decisions and priorities on user polls (I'm pretty sure most of them
> don't use HS+SR as much as Heikki these days).
> If you ask people what they want in their future cars, they won't
> answer they want wheels or an engine: it's something obvious for them.
> AFAICS (but I might be wrong), you asked this question to people who
> are interested in HS+SR but don't have any idea of what it's like to
> use HS+SR daily with or without this limitation.

Well, you are correct that a larger group of users *could* have avoided
an obvious and important issue. Though if you deploy that argument it
can be applied both ways: Heikki may also be missing an obvious and
important issue. Where does that leave us?

I am not against putting both into this release. If I am forced to
choose just one, I've at least given reasons why that should be so.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com