Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hot Standby had a different timeline, and quite frankly should have
> >> never been seriously considered for 8.4 at all. But I think that
> >> as long as SEPostgres was looming on the horizon, we didn't see the
> >> point of being strict about deadlines ...
>
> > Hot Standby wasn't in the original plan for 8.4, but someone suggested
> > "Hey, let's try.", and we did.
>
> Simon certainly made a heroic try at it, and I give him full marks for
> that. But HS was obviously not ready on 1 November. The point I was
> trying to make was that if SEPostgres had not been there, we'd have
> probably said on 1 November "sorry, this has to wait for 8.5". As it
> was, we let him carry on trying to get the patch to a committable state.
Well, we had many other patches in November so it isn't clear that SE-PG
was somehow what kept hot standby in-play.
> And of course all these things feed on each other --- when it's obvious
> that there is no immediate deadline, it's easy to let things slide a
> bit further.
True, but we haven't been sitting around doing nothing, and we had to do
most of what we have done since November whether we had SE-PG or host
standby in play.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
