On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 10:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > This is a more cautious approach. Completely removing VFI in this
> > release is a big risk that we need not take; we have little to gain from
> > doing so and putting it back again will be harder. I am always keen to
> > push forwards when a new feature is worthwhile, but cleaning up code is
> > not an important thing this late in release cycle.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether we
> should remove VFI this release cycle, but I thought the reason why
> there was pressure to do that was because we will otherwise need to
> make changes to Hot Standby to cope with VFI.
What I should have said, in addition: VFI will be kept as a non-default
option, in case it is required. We will document that use of VFI will
not work correctly with HS and that its use is deprecated and should be
in emergencies only in any case. I will enjoy removing VFI when that
eventually occurs, but its not a priority. (And if you think, why keep
it? I'll say - how else can we run a VFI - not by a stored proc,
certainly).
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
