Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> So what was the clear result?

I have spoken clearly enough. You were welcome to attend the Hot Standby
User Group. The fact that you did not expresses your own priorities
quite well, ISTM. Your protestations to know more about the wishes of
users than they do themselves isn't hugely impressive.

There are many features we should add. I will add them in priority order
until forced to stop.

If you or anyone else believes features are essential, then either add
them yourselves or have the courage to stand up and say the release
should be delayed so that I can. To do otherwise is to admit you do not
actually consider them essential. It cannot be both ways.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com