| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |
| Date: | 2013-08-08 19:13:33 |
| Message-ID: | 5203EDDD.2020804@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/08/2013 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think anybody working on related areas of the code thinks it's
> rock solid.
> But anyway, I just don't see the downside of allowing problem
> analysis. You're free to do more testing, review, whatever before the
> release.
I'm 100% with you that we ought to keep the slow failover code around
and accessible to debugging. What I'm asking is whether it should still
be explicitly available to users, and the default. Based on your
feedback, it's sounding like it should be.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-08-08 19:44:10 | Re: question about HTTP API |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-08-08 18:53:55 | Re: StrategyGetBuffer optimization, take 2 |