Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hot Standby had a different timeline, and quite frankly should have
>> never been seriously considered for 8.4 at all. But I think that
>> as long as SEPostgres was looming on the horizon, we didn't see the
>> point of being strict about deadlines ...
> Hot Standby wasn't in the original plan for 8.4, but someone suggested
> "Hey, let's try.", and we did.
Simon certainly made a heroic try at it, and I give him full marks for
that. But HS was obviously not ready on 1 November. The point I was
trying to make was that if SEPostgres had not been there, we'd have
probably said on 1 November "sorry, this has to wait for 8.5". As it
was, we let him carry on trying to get the patch to a committable state.
And of course all these things feed on each other --- when it's obvious
that there is no immediate deadline, it's easy to let things slide a
bit further.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
