Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why does pg_standby require

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require
Date: 2009-06-25 13:32:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
>> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
>> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
>> until the tree opens for 8.5.
> +1.  This is barely even a bug; it's not worth taking any risk for at
> this point.  (It is already too late for a patch applied now to be
> tested by the whole buildfarm before we wrap 8.4.0 --- some machines
> are on a once-a-day cycle.)

Yeah, that was our reasoning as well.

Attached is a patch that takes them both away, so I have something to
put on the wiki :-)

 Magnus Hagander

Attachment: pg_standby_link.patch
Description: text/x-diff (506 bytes)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2009-06-25 13:35:20
Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-06-25 13:29:31
Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group