Simon Riggs wrote:
> I am surprised at your arguments for simplicity. With Hot Standby you
> have insisted that everything should be in place. With SR you seem to
> have just stopped at a barely working, poorly documented implementation.
That's opposite to my recollection of the hot standby development. I
simplified and ripped out a lot of stuff from the original patch.
If you insist, I'll work out a patch to send a signal to startup process
after every fsync(), but it really doesn't seem very important given
that there's always a delay there anyway.
> We both know you can fix these things easily and quickly. Please do so.
That's a plural form. What's the other thing you're referring to?
> Not because I say so, but because everybody else will soon notice that
> you could have and did not.
Bollocks.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
