On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 14:06 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> If you insist, I'll work out a patch to send a signal to startup process
> after every fsync(), but it really doesn't seem very important given
> that there's always a delay there anyway.
>
> > We both know you can fix these things easily and quickly. Please do so.
>
> That's a plural form. What's the other thing you're referring to?
I mentioned 3 things right here:
* signal
* parameter to control delay (2 separate delays)
* docs
Many other things have been mentioned on other posts and I am unhappy
with the answer "lets defer everything til 9.1". Yes, some things need
to be deferred, but not everything. I feel for you both as developers,
and apologise if you don't like what I say, but we need to get things
into a better state for 9.0. Please.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
