> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Martin Zaun wrote:
> >> With these avenues to be explored, can the pg_standby patch on the
> >> CommitFest wiki be moved to the "Returned with Feedback" section?
>
> > Yes, I think we can conclude that we don't want this patch as it is.
> > Instead, we want a documentation patch that describes the problem,
> > mentioning that GNU cp is safe, or you can use the copy+rename trick.
>
> Right, after which we remove the presently hacked-in delay.
>
> I've updated the commitfest page accordingly.
Well, this is a strange conclusion, leaving me slightly bemused.
The discussion between Andrew and I at PGcon concluded that we would
* document which other tools to use
* remove the delay
Now we have rejected the patch which does that, but then re-requested
the exact same thing again.
The patch interprets "remove the delay" as "remove the delay in a way
which will not screw up existing users of pg_standby when they upgrade".
Doing that requires us to have a configurable delay, which defaults to
the current behaviour, but that can be set to zero (the recommended
way). Which is what the patch implements.
Andrew, Heikki: ISTM its time to just make the changes yourselves. This
is just going round and round to no benefit. This doesn't warrant such a
long discussion and review process.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
No comments:
Post a Comment