On 2018-Jul-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 03:37:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > For now, I think that just moving forward with 0001, and then revisit
> > 0002 once the other 2PC patch is settled makes the most sense. On the
> > other thread, the current 2PC behavior can create silent data loss so
> > I would like to back-patch it, so that would be less work.
>
> Are there any objections with this plan? If none, then I would like to
> move on with 0001 as there is clearly a consensus to simplify the work
> of translators and to clean up the error code paths for read() calls.
> Let's sort of the rest after the 2PC code paths are addressed.
No objection here -- incremental progress is better than none.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
