Re: Recovery Test Framework

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery Test Framework
Date: 2009-01-12 16:43:08
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10901120843m7be2e8c5uc703ab63ed9d88a4@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Basically I think we are up against the same type of project management
> decision we've had several times before: are we willing to slip the
> 8.4 release schedule for however long it will take for hot standby
> and the other replication-related features to be ready? At this point
> I think there can be no question that it will not be a small slip;
> in fact I'm not even prepared to guess at how long it will take.

What I wouldn't like to see is the replication patches becoming
another "Bitmap index on disk" patch. If we release 8.4 and postpone
replication to 8.5, we really need a plan to concentrate the efforts
of the few people capable of making it happen in the very few months
of the 8.5 cycle.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-12 16:46:47 Re: pg_restore -1 vs -C and -c
Previous Message David Fetter 2009-01-12 16:42:40 Re: Recovery Test Framework