Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> I would like to propose a different strategy. Instead of always
> tackling all the smaller patches and leaving the big patches for last,
> I would suggest we start with Hot Standby.
> In fact I would suggest as Hot Standby has already gotten a first pass
> review that we consider applying it on day 1.
Hot Standby wasn't ready for 8.4, and it's not any more ready now,
because nothing has been done on it since then. What Simon told us
at the developers' meeting is that he needs to find someone who will
bankroll further work on it. I hope that will happen, but we can't
design the 8.5 schedule around the assumption that it will.
I'm also not prepared to push a large and unstable feature into the tree
on the hope that it will get fixed. The general consensus among -core,
and I think most of -hackers as well, is that we want to try to keep CVS
HEAD pretty stable, so that developers aren't fighting each others'
bugs. This also ties into the "alpha releases" concept that Peter
mentioned --- if HEAD isn't stable then we can hardly put out a testable
alpha release.
regards, tom lane
