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
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 |