On 2018-Jul-16, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 03:37:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > For now, I think that just moving forward with 0001, and then revisit > > 0002 once the other 2PC patch is settled makes the most sense. On the > > other thread, the current 2PC behavior can create silent data loss so > > I would like to back-patch it, so that would be less work. > > Are there any objections with this plan? If none, then I would like to > move on with 0001 as there is clearly a consensus to simplify the work > of translators and to clean up the error code paths for read() calls. > Let's sort of the rest after the 2PC code paths are addressed.
No objection here -- incremental progress is better than none. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
