Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] �I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing
>> utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. �Simon rejected that.
>> I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field
>> (and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before
>> I argue with him further. �Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything
>> unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
> Oh. I thought you had ignored his objections and fixed it. Why are
> we releasing 9.0 with this problem again? Surely this is nuts.
My original review of hot standby found about half a dozen things
I thought were broken:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00178.php
After a *very* long-drawn-out fight I fixed one of them
(max_standby_delay), largely still over Simon's objections. I don't
have the energy to repeat that another half-dozen times, so I'm going
to wait for the suspected problems to be proven by field experience.
regards, tom lane