On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, we also
> bumped MANY patches to 9.2 because they weren't in sufficiently good
> shape soon enough. If we accept this patch now because a bunch of
> people say they really, really want it, isn't that unfair to the
> people to whom we've already said "sorry, the deadline has passed"?
>
> Of course, there is always going to be some gray area. I argued for
> committing the replication_timeout patch because I believe the fact
> that we haven't got that feature is almost a bug - it interferes
> significantly with the usability of replication in general, and it
> will be an even more serious problem with sync rep, where a hung
> standby connection will not only mean that nothing is replicating but
> also that no write transactions can be processed at all. However, you
> could make the opposite argument - that it's really a new feature -
> and therefore we ought not to commit it. So far no one has taken that
> position, but it's certainly a reasonable argument.
The questions and issues you raise are real and I have no idea how to
judge them. All I know is that if we spent less time discussing
procedural issues, we'd get a lot more done and much more amicably
also.
I think "What makes PostgreSQL better?". I think about a rounded
feature set and treat that just as I would a bug. I know that's not
the same for everybody.
I'm happy there are people looking at replication timeouts also.
Regrettably I don't have enough time for everything I would like to
see.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
