Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> The fact the patch does not do anything that anyone might ever want is
>>> not a sufficient grounds for rejecting it.
>> Huh? That sounds like enough of a reason to me.
>
> s/anything that anyone might ever want/everything that anyone might ever want/
Well, if it did at least something that someone might want, the case
would be much stronger ;-).
> Infrastructure changes for recovery was an earlier version of hot
> standby. That's all I was referring to here.
The "infrastrucutre changes for recovery" patch is a prerequisite patch
for hot standby. It's included now in the hot standby patch, but it does
provide some functionality of its own, so it could be split out and
committed separately. And it should, IMO.
> I am glad to hear that Hot Standby is still on the road to being
> committed, but even as a regular reader of -hackers I have to say the
> process has been somewhat murky to me. Either there is a lot of
> discussion that has been happening off-list, or there are long pauses
> when either you or Simon aren't really corresponding and it isn't
> obvious in whose court the ball lies.
There hasn't been any substantial discussion off-list. The latter
might've true at times. Also, I've been busy with other stuff, and Simon
was ill at one point.
> Based on what I've seen
> on-list, I sort of thought that Simon was waiting for you to take the
> next step by committing at least some portion of the patch. Needless
> to say if you're both waiting for each other nothing will get done.
Well, right now I'm waiting for a new version from Simon. But the
infrastructure patch is really the first part that should be reviewed in
detail (again) and committed.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
