On 01/24/2014 12:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > ISTM the consensus is that we need better monitoring/administration > interfaces so that people can script the behavior they want in external > tools. Also, a new synchronous apply replication mode would be handy, > but that'd be a whole different patch. We don't have a patch on the > table that we could consider committing any time soon, so I'm going to > mark this as rejected in the commitfest app.
I don't feel that "we'll never do auto-degrade" is determinative; several hackers were for auto-degrade, and they have a good use-case argument. However, we do have consensus that we need more scaffolding than this patch supplies in order to make auto-degrade *safe*. I encourage the submitter to resumbit and improved version of this patch (one with more monitorability) for 9.5 CF1. That'll give us a whole dev cycle to argue about it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
