Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that?
>
> No, not if there is a likelihood the work would be wasted.
There always is.
(I would've wrote the patch myself right away, but I'm extremely busy at
the moment. :-( Might take one more day before I get the time to finish
it, and we don't have much time)
>> Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
>> on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature
>> than a bug fix.
>
> I don't really understand this comment. Why would fixing a memory leak
> be worthwhile when fixing a potential for data loss be a deferrable
> activity?
Because the data loss is working as designed and documented, even though
the design is not what most people want and the documentation could say
that more prominently. That said, I'm in favor of changing this for 8.4.
> I will set-up pg_standby as an external module and we can change it from
> there. No more discussions-for-8.4 and I can update as required to
> support each release. So let's just remove it from contrib and be done.
> Counterthoughts?
That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed
fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At
least for this release: If we get more integrated replication options in
8.5, that would be a good time to move pg_standby out of contrib if
that's what we want.)
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
