On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>(added to commitfest: >>> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=888) >>> > It seems you have added it in current commit fest. >>> > Shouldn't it be added for next CF. >>> >>> Yep. The current CF has been closed to new submissions for two and a >>> half weeks. >> >> Might this be something to consder for 9.2, though? It could be considered a >> bugfix. >> >>> On the substance of the patch, I believe the reason why this is >>> currently disallowed is because the TLI is implicitly taken from the >>> running system, and on the standby that might be the wrong value. >>> >>> I might be misremembering. >> >> That is, however, assuming that this part is not true. I don't recall for >> sure, but I have a feeling it might be correct. In which case a much bigger >> patch is needed, and definitely not something for 9.2... > > Even if we were to conclude that the argument about TLIs is not valid, > I'd be very reluctant to slip something like this into 9.2, because we > have no time left to recant if it later turns out that there's some > other reason why it's not a good idea. Removing error checks is one > of those things that you want to try to get done early in the release > cycle, because the consequences are sometimes difficult to foresee, > and you may not find out why it was a bad idea until users start > complaining.
Ah. The placement in that particular commitfest was an oversight. I'll move it. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
