On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:15:38PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> against a simple N1->N2 setup bombarded with a -c5 pgbench. That isn't
> quite the testing you want to have done before committing such a
> substantial change in the inner core log selection logic of STABLE code,
> is it?
What, we're not gonna pants-seat fly? Sigh. No guts, no glory ;-)
Seriously, I agree with Jan here: let's be _really_ conservative with
this one. Indeed, given that it's a small patch, I'd be inclined to
issue a .11 with a contrib/pgq-apprach.patch file and suggest people
try it before back patching for real. The HEAD is a good place for
architectural changes, but the supposedly STABLE releases aren't.
I'm not a fan of the Linux-style, "rewrite the PCI subsystem in
x.x.8" STABLE-style releases. And I think this project has been
often enough bitten by such exuberance that we should be cautious.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
_______________________________________________
Slony1-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
