Magnus Hagander writes:
> Yes, especially since we discussed it in Stuttgart. I guess it may
> have been during the party...
I remember we talked about it, I didn't remember a patch had reached the list…
> Yes, if it should go in any of the current binaries, initdb would be
> the reasonable plac
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 18:53, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c80d9b8.2020...@enterprisedb.com
>>
>> That just needs to be polished into shape, and documentation.
I have an updated version of this somewhere.IIRC it also needs thi
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c80d9b8.2020...@enterprisedb.com
>
> That just needs to be polished into shape, and documentation.
Wow, cool! I don't know how but I've missed it.
> +1. Or maybe it would be better make it a separate binary, rather than par
On 02.01.2011 14:47, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
BTW, there's a bunch of replication related stuff that we should work to
close, that are IMHO more important than synchronous replication. Like
making the standby follow timeline changes, to make failovers smoother, and
the
