Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Maybe it's just me, but I'm struggling to understand current
>>> community processes and decisions.

>> Well, I've already spent a fair amount of time trying to explain
>> my understanding of it, and for my trouble I got accused of being
>> long-winded. Which is probably true, but makes me think I should
>> probably keep this response short. I'm not unwilling to talk
>> about it, though, and perhaps someone else would like to chime in.

> I rather liked the brief comment in a recent post of yours where you
> said that at this point we should only be accepting patches which
> stabilize what has already been committed, rather than new features
> which might require further stabilization.

Quite. While we're on the subject, why did that int->money patch get
committed so quickly? I had assumed that was 9.2 material, because it
didn't seem to be addressing any new-in-9.1 issue. I'm not going to ask
for it to be backed out, but I am wondering what the decision process
was.

regards, tom lane