From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby |
Date: | 2009-11-15 22:17:05 |
Message-ID: | 24573.1258323425@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> So I'm in favor of committing part of the HS code even if there are
> known failure conditions, as long as those conditions are well-defined.
If we're thinking of committing something that is known broken, I would
want to have a clearly defined and trust-inspiring escape strategy.
"We can always revert the patch later" inspires absolutely zero
confidence here, because in a patch this large there are always going to
be overlaps with other later patches. If it gets to be February and HS
is still unshippable, reverting is going to be a tricky and risky
affair.
I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as
any clear showstoppers remain unresolved.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-11-15 22:18:36 | Re: patch - Report the schema along table name in a referential failure error message |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-15 22:09:55 | Re: pgsql: /home/peter/commit-msg |