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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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 Content-Type Size
pg_standby_link.patch text/x-diff 506 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2009-06-25 13:35:20 Re: Why does pg_standby require
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-06-25 13:29:31 Re: Why does pg_standby require