Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Well, we had many other patches in November so it isn't clear that SE-PG was somehow what kept hot standby in-play. > 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. True, but we haven't been sitting around doing nothing, and we had to do most of what we have done since November whether we had SE-PG or host standby in play. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
