Re: Summary and Plan for Hot Standby
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-11-15T22:17:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > So I'm in favor of committing part of the HS code even if there are > known failure conditions, as long as those conditions are well-defined. If we're thinking of committing something that is known broken, I would want to have a clearly defined and trust-inspiring escape strategy. "We can always revert the patch later" inspires absolutely zero confidence here, because in a patch this large there are always going to be overlaps with other later patches. If it gets to be February and HS is still unshippable, reverting is going to be a tricky and risky affair. I agree with Heikki that it would be better not to commit as long as any clear showstoppers remain unresolved. regards, tom lane