>Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada@kokolink.net> writes:
>> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
>> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
>> is must-fix or not.
>
>> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
>> but more likely to happen.
>
>> If you leave this problem, for example, any long-running transactions,
>> holding any cursors in whatever tables, have a possibility of freezing
>> whole recovery work in HotStandby node until the transaction commit.
>
>Seems like something we should fix ASAP, but I do not see why it need
>hold up an alpha release. Alpha releases are expected to have bugs,
>and this one doesn't look like it would stop people from finding
>other bugs.
>
At the beginning of this commit fest, Heikki said in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00914.php
>Of course there should be several phases! We've *already* punted a lot
>of stuff from this first increment we're currently working on. The
>criteria for getting this first phase committed is: could we release
>with no further changes?
And other patches seem to be checked with similar criteria, as long as
I read mails in this list. So I wanted to know whether the problem is
must-fix, and if it is, why the criteria has been changed during the
commit fest.
Anyway, thanks for answering my question.
regards,
-- Hiroyuki YAMADA Kokolink Corporation yamada@kokolink.net
