On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > This is a more cautious approach. Completely removing VFI in this > release is a big risk that we need not take; we have little to gain from > doing so and putting it back again will be harder. I am always keen to > push forwards when a new feature is worthwhile, but cleaning up code is > not an important thing this late in release cycle.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether we should remove VFI this release cycle, but I thought the reason why there was pressure to do that was because we will otherwise need to make changes to Hot Standby to cope with VFI. Or in other words, I thought that in order to wrap a release we would need to do one of (1) remove VFI and (2) fix HS to cope with VFI, and maybe there was a theory that the former was easier than the latter. But it's possible I may have totally misunderstood the situation. What is your thought on how to handle this? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
