Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution
От | Guillaume Smet |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1d4e0c11001290020i4587897xdeb42c2868be9ced@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict
resolution
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that > to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As > mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional > feedback and the result was very clear. I don't have a technical opinion about this problem yet as I haven't tested HS+SR yet but I'm not sure it's a good idea to base technical decisions and priorities on user polls (I'm pretty sure most of them don't use HS+SR as much as Heikki these days). If you ask people what they want in their future cars, they won't answer they want wheels or an engine: it's something obvious for them. AFAICS (but I might be wrong), you asked this question to people who are interested in HS+SR but don't have any idea of what it's like to use HS+SR daily with or without this limitation. There are perhaps better arguments for not doing it but this one seems a bit weird to me. -- Guillaume
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: