Agreed.  I think if we had followed procedure the code would have been
accepted post-beta1.


Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All objections have been procedural, AFICS.
> Lets not talk about mistakes we made for a moment.
> And I agree with the rest of the objections in general. But I'd
> like to summarise why I still hope the exception can be made
> even this late.
> This is directly related to attitude to the first submission to 8.2:
> "unless Slony uses it we are not interested".  Now is the only
> moment which won't come again in several years that it's possible
> to unify txid handling in Slony and Skytools and also make the
> functionality available to broader public.
> This due to the fact that Slony 2.0 which will be released with 8.3
> will not support PostgreSQL version lower then 8.3.
> Yes, we realized the opportunity too late and now it's question
> if PostgreSQL is flexible enough to react to this.
> Note that rejection now does not cause any big problems to either
> Slony and Skytools, we will keep our internal versions of the module,
> invisible to anybody else.
> But the potential use of the module is huge - it's killer feature is
> that it allows to implement high-performance multi-reader / multi-writer
> queues inside database.  Well, I know this sounds unimpressive, queues
> do not belong to standard toolbox when doing database developement.
> And those who have tried to implement them, carry a "avoid at any cost" tag,
> because thus far there has not been a way to implement robust and
> well-perfoming queue inside general-purpose database.
> Now txid can change that.  E.g. in Skype, it has become irreplaceable
> tool for coordinating work between several databases.  Here we are
> probably going overboard with usage of queues...
> -- 
> marko

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to