Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
The point is that a standalone backend will fail to execute recovery
This is bad enough now but seems likely to be an even bigger foot-gun
in an HS/SR world.
> 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.
If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing
standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've
been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-04-19 16:02:07|
|Subject: Re: perltidy|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-19 15:04:00|
|Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4887: inclusion operator (@>) on tsqeries behaves not conforming to documentation|