On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 11:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > That's better, I was worried you'd gone all complimentary on me. > > <grin>Never fear that! > > Was that setting originally part of your design for HS? If so, why did > you back off from it?
We all agreed its a kluge, that's why. It's also my 3rd choice of solution behind fine-grained lock conflicts (1st) which would avoid many issues and master/standby in lock step (2nd). Having said that I'm much in favour of providing a range of options and then letting users tell us what works for them. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
