On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> And I don't
> >> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people
> >> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables
> >> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.
>
> > The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement
> > things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot
> > Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say
> > Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored.
>
> The current definition of Hot Standby is that it's a *read only*
> behavior. Not read mostly. What you are proposing is a rather
> fundamental change in the behavior of HS, and it doesn't seem to me
> that it should be on the head of anybody else to make it work.
That's a dangerous precedent you just set.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
