On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:10:08AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I agree with Fujii to the extent that I see little value in
> committing this patch in the form proposed. Being smart enough to use
> the LSN to identify changed blocks, but then sending the entirety of
> every file anyway because you don't want to go to the trouble of
> figuring out how to revise the wire protocol to identify the
> individual blocks being sent and write the tools to reconstruct a full
> backup based on that data, does not seem like enough of a win. As
> Fujii says, if we ship this patch as written, people will just keep
> using the timestamp-based approach anyway. Let's wait until we have
> something that is, at least in some circumstances, a material
> improvement over the status quo before committing anything.
The big problem I have with this patch is that it has not followed the
proper process for development, i.e. at the top of the TODO list we
have:
Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
This patch has continued in development without getting agreement on
its Desirability or Design, meaning we are going to continue going back
to those points until there is agreement. Posting more versions of this
patch is not going to change that.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
