Hi,
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)
>> <harald.kolb@nsn.com> wrote:
>> > In our use case it's important to have a short failover time.
>> > So everything what keeps the time low, would be good to have.
>>
>> Yes. I think that it's a matter of priority.
>
> Reducing failover time should be the subject of another patch, not
> something to be included in synch rep. That will just make patch bigger
> and harder to commit.
Agreed. I'll concentrate on synch rep itself until it's committed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
