| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master() |
| Date: | 2012-12-21 14:09:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoad8Gi6hfK_6jt3fQnztai-vHG=sjiDf=ThrHsfSaa+QA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> As ever, we spent much energy on debating backwards compatibility
>> rather than just solving the problem it posed, which is fairly easy
>> to
>> solve.
>
> Well, IIRC, the debate was primarily of *your* making. Almost everyone else on the thread was fine with the original patch, and it was nearly done for 9.2 before you stepped in. I can't find anyone else on that thread who thought that backwards compatibility was more important than fixing the API.
+1. Let's JFDI.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-21 14:17:20 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-21 14:08:19 | Re: Cascading replication: should we detect/prevent cycles? |