Re: what to revert

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: what to revert
Date: 2016-05-03 16:58:12
Message-ID: 20160503165812.GA29604@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund wrote:

> I'm *really* doubtful about the logical timeline following patches. I
> think they're, as committed, over-complicated and pretty much unusable.

As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature. Craig
was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical
changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking
ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts
that would use it. Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit
rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that
we can revisit it for 9.7.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-05-03 17:08:28 Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2016-05-03 16:56:06 Re: old_snapshot_threshold's interaction with hash index