On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> OK, I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to. > >> I re-read it too and I don't understand either. > > The point is that a standalone backend will fail to execute recovery > correctly: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01297.php > This is bad enough now but seems likely to be an even bigger foot-gun > in an HS/SR world.
OK. >> This is LISTED as an >> open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I >> think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was >> discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is >> apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me >> that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it. > > If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing > standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've > been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a > solution... I'm not sure if this is the main thing, but I think it's probably in the top 5. At present there are 8 items (not counting documentation issues) listed at: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items ...not all of which seem likely to get fixed, and probably 1-3 additional patches that are floating around out there without having formally gotten added to the list. I think it's realistic to think that we could be within 10 commits of beta. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
