Re: commit_delay, siblings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: commit_delay, siblings
Date: 2005-06-28 14:35:43
Message-ID: 15112.1119969343@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>> If we yank them ( and I agree) I think we have to do it before feature
>>> freeze.
>>
>> I believe that we have consensus to yank them. Hans says that he did
>> extensive testing back as far as 7.4 and the options had no effect.

> My opinion is, we'd better test with at least 8.0, or even better with
> current. I think I can do the testing after Jul 1 if those features
> are remained. I have a dual Xeon system with a 15000RPM SCSI disk
> system in my office.

Well, the proposal is on the table, and the implementation is pretty
obvious. If you want to be sticky about the feature freeze rule,
someone could generate a diff to remove the variables and post it to
-patches before July 1, and then it would be fully per-rules to evaluate
it after July 1. I vote not to require ourselves to go through that
pushup.

If Tatsuo can do some testing next week, I'm happy to hold off removing
the variables until then.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2005-06-28 14:36:10 Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-28 14:24:15 Re: Occupied port warning