On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> OK, I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to.
>
>> I re-read it too and I don't understand either.
>
> The point is that a standalone backend will fail to execute recovery
> correctly:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01297.php
> This is bad enough now but seems likely to be an even bigger foot-gun
> in an HS/SR world.
OK.
>> This is LISTED as an
>> open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I
>> think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was
>> discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is
>> apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me
>> that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it.
>
> If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing
> standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've
> been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a
> solution...
I'm not sure if this is the main thing, but I think it's probably in the top 5.
At present there are 8 items (not counting documentation issues) listed at:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
...not all of which seem likely to get fixed, and probably 1-3
additional patches that are floating around out there without having
formally gotten added to the list. I think it's realistic to think
that we could be within 10 commits of beta.
...Robert
