On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/11 7:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> I don't want a release as soon as possible, I want the best we are able
>> to provide, and I think adding in current $subject patch helps reaching
>> this goal. <include "baring show stoppers" QA disclaimer>
>
> There will *always* be more work we can do on sync rep. If we hold the
> release until we're done tinkering with it, we'll never release. Our
> project has had a chronic issue with not being able to progress from
> feature freeze to release in a timely fashion for years, and the sort of
> argument expressed above isn't helping.
>
> The relevant question is: is sync rep unusable by a large portion of our
> users because this feature was stripped from what got committed, or is
> it a value-add feature which makes synch rep nicer? If the former, it's
> a bug and we should patch it; if the latter, it should wait until 9.2.
That's not relevant. Can something small be added for large benefit: yes!
It's a complete misrepresentation to suggest this would hold up the
release in any way and all the actual technical comments have been
easily dismissed. We've already used more time writing these emails
than it took me to write the patch (< 2 hours). This still can be
reviewed and committed easily.
This is not a new feature. It's something that's been in the design
for months, was submitted in the recent CF and is a minor change with
low risk.
Given we've all been here before, I've done my homework on what is
acceptable at this stage and this passes. There is nothing different
between this and the replication timeout patch. I'm not suggesting
that should be yanked as well, BTW.
And I'm not getting paid a single penny for this. Just me, trying to
add value for the PostgreSQL project.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
