On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> > Your reply has again avoided the subject of how we would handle failure
> >> > modes with per-standby settings. That is important.
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone is avoiding that, we just haven't discussed it.
> >
> > You haven't discussed it, but even before you do, you know its better.
> > Not very compelling perspective...
>
> I don't really understand this comment. I have said, and I believe,
> that a system without quorum commit is simpler than one with quorum
> commit. I'd debate the point with you but I find the point so
> self-evident that I don't even know where to begin arguing it.
> It's simply an opinion, which I believe to
> be based on solid technical reasoning, but which I might change my
> mind about if someone convinces me that I'm looking at the problem the
> wrong way.
You're saying you have solid technical reasons, but they are so
self-evident that you can't even begin to argue them. Why are you so
sure your reasons are solid?? Regrettably, I say this doesn't make any
sense, however much you write.
The decision may already have been made in your eyes, but the community
still has options as to how to proceed, whether or not Masao has already
written this.
Zoltan has already presented a patch that follows my proposal, so there
are alternate valid paths which we can decide between. It's not a matter
of opinion as to which is easier to code cos its already done; you can
run the patch and see. (No comment on other parts of that patch).
The alternative is an approach that hasn't even been presented itself
fully on list, with many unanswered questions. I've thought about this
myself and discussed my reasons on list for the past two years. If you
can read all I've presented to the community and come up with a better
way, great, we'll all be happy.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
