On 9 April 2016 at 11:57, Stas Kelvich <s.kelv...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

> > On 09 Apr 2016, at 03:05, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > CommitFest 2016-03 is now closed.  I have moved "Twophase transactions
> > on slave", "Partial sort", and "amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking
> > tool)" to the next CommitFest in accordance with the policy previous
> > set by the release management team.   I have left "Replace buffer
> > manager spinlock with atomic operations" active in the current
> > CommitFest because it was granted an extension.  The RMT has received
> > Tom's request for an extension on the "Unique Joins" patch but has not
> > yet reached a decision.
> >
> Aren’t  "Twophase transactions on slave” falling into category of patches
> that fixes
> previously introduces behaviour? |'m not trying to argue with RMT
> decision, but just
> want to ensure that it was thoughtful decision, taking into account that
> absence of that
> patch in release can cause problems with replication in some cases as it
> was warned
> by Jesper[1] and Andres[2].
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5707a8cc.6080...@redhat.com
> [2]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-cf572a2ff...@anarazel.de

It's a longstanding problem and it would be good if we had an improvement.

I can't commit a patch that has a reported bug against it, nor can we fix
the problem if we can't reproduce it.

If we do get a committable patch, that is then the time to make a case to
RMT, but not before.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to