>Hiroyuki Yamada <yam...@kokolink.net> writes: >> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to >> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php >> is must-fix or not. > >> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic >> but more likely to happen. > >> If you leave this problem, for example, any long-running transactions, >> holding any cursors in whatever tables, have a possibility of freezing >> whole recovery work in HotStandby node until the transaction commit. > >Seems like something we should fix ASAP, but I do not see why it need >hold up an alpha release. Alpha releases are expected to have bugs, >and this one doesn't look like it would stop people from finding >other bugs. >
At the beginning of this commit fest, Heikki said in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00914.php >Of course there should be several phases! We've *already* punted a lot >of stuff from this first increment we're currently working on. The >criteria for getting this first phase committed is: could we release >with no further changes? And other patches seem to be checked with similar criteria, as long as I read mails in this list. So I wanted to know whether the problem is must-fix, and if it is, why the criteria has been changed during the commit fest. Anyway, thanks for answering my question. regards, -- Hiroyuki YAMADA Kokolink Corporation yam...@kokolink.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
