Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
>> > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
>> > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think
>> > it makes sense to go to beta with a huge, barely-tested pile of code
>> > in the tree.  Not that the testing Heikki and Fujii Masao have been
>> > doing until now hasn't been good, but it's not nearly as rigorous as
>> > what we will get when all of our users start banging on it.
>>
>> This argument would hold more water if there weren't *already* a huge,
>> barely-tested pile of code in the tree, namely HS.  If you think that's
>> anywhere near ready to go to beta, I'm afraid I'd better disillusion
>> you immediately.
>
> I agree with Tom's analysis.  HS is very complex, while SR is more
> mechanical.  We might find that in the end SR was stable before HS.
> I think we should stay on course and see where we are when Heikki is
> ready for a commit of SR.

I think you're saying that you think we should hold up the 8.5 release
for as long as it takes to get SR committed. If that's the case, -1
from me.

It also does not seem right to me to suppose that the amount of time
that it will take to stabilize HS is independent of when we give up on
SR. Surely Heikki, Simon, and Fujii Masao are all key people for both
projects, no? Tom as well, come to think of it.

...Robert