On 28.03.2011 15:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but there is certainly no
>> open item for adding additional sync rep modes.
>
> In your opinion.
Huh? First you say that Robert added an open item about this to the
list, he says that the open item wasn't about additional sync rep modes,
and you say "in your opinion".
> We will have to live with the UI for a long time, yes. I'm trying to
> get it right, whether that includes adding an obvious/easy omission or
> renaming things to make better sense.
>
> Your other changes make this sensible, and feedback I received after a
> recent presentation tells me that people will expect it to work with
> the two additional options.
>
> I would prefer further feedback before solidifying this design, but if
> we must solidify it now, then I prefer to do that with all 5 options.
> As originally submitted for this commit fest.
It's too late to be doing this. The patch isn't ready to be committed,
and there's high potential to introduce new bugs or usability issues.
And regarding the UI, I'm not totally convinced that a four-state GUC
set in the master is the way go. It would feel at least as logical to
control this in the standby.
I don't really want to get into that discussion, though. My point is
that if we wanted to still sneak this in, then we would have to have
those discussions. -1. Let's fix the existing issues, and release.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
