On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Greg Stark<gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If Hot Standby were ready to be applied, I would be all in favor of
>> that, but in fact I don't believe that's the case. There's been no
>> movement on Hot Standby since February
>
> Well Simon was happy with it as submitted so unless people are reading
> the patch and giving feedback or using it and running into problems I
> wouldn't really expect him to make changes.
>
> That's part of the problem with leaving patches outside the source
> tree while they're being developed. It's part of what led us to
> suddenly have a massive reviewing job and making big changes in the
> final commitfest.
>
> If we apply things earlier in the cycle we can be a lot less
> conservative. We don't have to be 100% sure everything was dealt with
> in a single commit.
+1 (I'm all for getting HS in people's hands ASAP)
Given that there is also a lot of work on synchronous replication, is
it better to get the HS in so the SR stuff can use that as a baseline,
or to triage in both patches together?
merlin