Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this >>> release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01175.php >>> presents a viable design to improve this. >>> >>> Following patch is a complete working implementation of that design. >>> I'm still testing it, but its worth publishing as early as possible to >>> allow discussion. Not for commit, just yet, but soon. >> Um, you're not considering this for 9.0, are you? I think it's time to >> concentrate on the must-fix issues and fix the rough edges in what we have. > > Yes, it is important. > >> For example, the "can't start hot standby mode from a shutdown >> checkpoint" issue is a must-fix issue in my opinion, about 10x as >> important as this. When that was last discussed, many others agreed. I >> run into that all the time when testing streaming replication, and every >> time I go "Huh, why isn't the standby opening up for connections?", and >> then, "Ahh, it's this stupid shutdown checkpoint issue again". > > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that > to me,
Yes they have. I have on several occasions, as have other people on this mailing list: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/603c8f070912201611h4951087craa080ff6b48a9...@mail.gmail.com http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4b30ae53.6020...@gmail.com http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/407d949e0912220738je1e0141m87d7b688dd4ba...@mail.gmail.com I even *fixed* that already, but you decided to take it out before committing. I then added it to the list of must-fix items in the TODO list, but you took that out too. I have no objection to doing things in smaller steps, but this *is* a must-fix item before release. I still don't understand why you took it out, nor why you're objecting to that. > though many have commented on the need for the current patch. Who? > As > mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional > feedback and the result was very clear. So what was the clear result? If you're looking for things to do, I agree with Greg Stark that the removal of max_standby_delay=-1 option is not good. That should be fixed too. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers