| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Date: | 2009-05-13 19:05:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4A0B1A10.4070207@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>
>> That's a lot more drastic change to make in beta. Besides, the proposed
>> fix required backend changes. I think we should keep it in contrib. (At
>> least for this release: If we get more integrated replication options in
>> 8.5, that would be a good time to move pg_standby out of contrib if
>> that's what we want.)
>>
>
> The proposed fix requires coordinated changes in the core and
> pg_standby. That would be a lot *harder* if pg_standby were external.
> Since we've evidently not gotten this API quite right yet, I think we
> should be keeping pg_standby in contrib until we do, ie the API has been
> stable for awhile ...
>
>
>
Agreed.
Frankly, if anything it should move from contrib to the core proper. I
regard it as an essential utility, not an optional extra.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-13 19:08:52 | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-13 18:57:53 | Re: New trigger option of pg_standby |