On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> > Clearly, anything is more feature-full than boolean --- the big question >> > is whether Tom's proposal is significantly better than boolean that we >> > should spend the time designing and implementing it, with the >> > possibility it will all be changed in 9.1. >> >> I doubt it's likely to be thrown out completely. We might decide to >> fine-tune it in some way. My fear is that if we ship this with only a >> boolean, we're shipping crippleware. If that fear turns out to be >> unfounded, I will of course be happy, but that's my concern, and I >> don't believe that it's entirely unfounded. > > Well, historically, we have been willing to not ship features if we > can't get it right. No one has ever accused us of crippleware, but our > hesitancy has caused slower user adoption, though long-term, it has > helped us grow a dedicated user base that trusts us.
We can make the decision to not ship the feature if the feature is "max_standby_delay". But I think the feature is "Hot Standby", which I think we've pretty much committed to shipping. And I am concerned that if the only mechanism for controlling query cancellation vs. recovery lag is a boolean, people feel that we didn't get Hot Standby right. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
