| 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 |
| Thread: | |
| 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 http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| 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 |