Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:52 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:

> You said "I think we should extend the time available to make sure we
> have a sensible set of features for 9.0."  Perhaps part of the problem
> is that I couldn't understand what your patch did from the description
> you posted and can't evaluate whether it's fixing a problem that makes
> the current feature set incoherent. Can you explain what it does in
> more detail so we can understand why it's necessary for a sensible set
> of features?

I'll break down the patch into two pieces to make it easier to review,
and add more description, as you suggest.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com