Robert Haas  wrote:
> Kevin Grittner  wrote:
>> I agree it's pretty late in the cycle, but I'm going through all
>> the loose ends and found this one -- which has been hanging out on
>> the Wiki page as an R&D item for over a full year without
>> discussion.  :-(  If we provide the snapshots (which we can safely
>> and easily do), can someone else who knows what they're doing with
>> WAL and HS get the rest of it safely into the release? That seems
>> to me to be the only way it can still happen for 9.1.
> I think it's way too late to be embarking on what will probably
> turn out to be a reasonably complex and possibly controversial new
> development arc. I don't have a strong position on what we should
> do instead, but let's NOT do that.
If that can't reasonably be done for 9.1, well, my next sentence was:
>> If not, I agree this can be 9.2 material.
It'd be sweet if it could still happen 9.1, but hardly a shock if it
can't.  I didn't want to presume to make the call.
Like I said at the start, the alternative is to decide how noisy we
want to be about providing snapshot isolation on hot standbys when
SERIALIZABLE is requested, and figuring out where to document it.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to