On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:16 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 07:48:25PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I proposed to implement the "return-immediately" at first because it
> > doesn't require standby registration. But if many people think that
> > the "wait-forever" is the core rather than the "return-immediately",
> > I'll follow them. We can implement the "return-immediately" after
> > that.
>
> In my experience, most people who want "synchronous" behavior are
> willing to put up with "wait forever," especially when asynchronous
> behavior is already available.
>
> In short, +1 for "push 'wait forever' soonest."
>
> Anybody who's got a Secret Base, Hidden in a Hollowed-Out Mountain,
> Making Grand Plans While Stroking a Long-Haired Cat[1], should please
> to update their public repository, or create a public repository if it
> doesn't already exist, and in either case keep it current.
You've long held the belief that I code in secret and don't reveal my
code to people. Not really sure why, since I've contributed so much, so
openly. Strange.
I am trying to establish a sensible design based upon public discussion.
I'm not working on any code currently; my understanding was that we
would discuss what we were going to do and only then do it.
I *could* add automatic registration or many other features to my patch.
Doing so would take hours or days. How would that help us decide what to
do? I'm not treating this as a race between people's patches; is it a
race? Or is it a discussion and move forwards by mutual agreement
towards something sensible?
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services