On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:33:03 +0300
"Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering the core operations are now being in active use
> some 6-7 years, I really fail to see how there can be anything
> to tweak, unless you are speaking changing naming style.
Well that is the problem right there isn't it? As someone who has
financed, shipped, developed and tested an integrated Replication
solution for *years*, this statement is obvious naivety.
Your code, may be the most blessed, pristine and bug free code *in your
environment* but your environment is hardly the only environment out
there and things *always* come up.
>
> IMHO the core operations are already as stable as PostgreSQL use
> of MVCC, as the module just exports backend internal state...
> Current set of functions is the minimal necessary to implement
> queue operations, there is nothing more to remove.
Having a hard time buying that. MVCC has the pleasure of being tested
everyday by hundreds of thousands of installations.
>
> We might want to add some helper functions for query generation,
> but that does not affect core operation.
>
But it does affect the inclusion argument.
> Another thing can can be done is more compact representation for
> txid_snapshot type, but that also won't affect core operation.
>
You are starting to bring up things in your own post that may need to
change before inclusion. This is *exactly* why the code should be
removed. It wasn't vetted on -hackers, and if it had been we may have
had a more complete piece of software.
> I am very happy for txid being in contrib, I'm not arguing against
> that, but the hint that txid module is something that just freshly
> popped out of thin air is irking me.
Certainly, I can understand this as you have had a long time to work
with, develop and mature the code. However it is just out of thin air.
It doesn't exist except for a very small part of the PostgreSQL world.
It may not be new to you, but it is certainly 100% new to many of the
long time contributors of this project.
> > I think our two realistic options today are (1) leave the code where
> > it is, or (2) remove it. While Jan clearly failed to follow the
> > agreed procedures, I'm not convinced the transgression was severe
> > enough to justify (2).
>
> Thanks for being understanding.
>
We all try to be :) but I do feel it needs to be removed, pgFoundry is
the perfect place for this.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
