Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimYuaD0emKozSOaoEsZq1Qy+N1VmHNEO+_V+wnn@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 19:42, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Is it really stable enough for bin/?  My impression of the state of
>> affairs is that there is nothing whatsoever about replication that
>> is really stable yet.
>
> Well, that's not stopping us from shipping a core feature called "replication".  I'll defer to others on how mature
pg_streamrecvis, but if it's no worse than replication in general I think putting it in bin/ is the right thing to do. 

It has had less eyes on it, which puts it worse off than general
replication. OTOH, it's a lot simper code, which puts it better.

Either way, as long as it gets those eyes before release if we put it
in, it shouldn't be worse off than general replication.


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1?
Next
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid