Hi, On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich) >> <harald.k...@nsn.com> wrote: >> > In our use case it's important to have a short failover time. >> > So everything what keeps the time low, would be good to have. >> >> Yes. I think that it's a matter of priority. > > Reducing failover time should be the subject of another patch, not > something to be included in synch rep. That will just make patch bigger > and harder to commit.
Agreed. I'll concentrate on synch rep itself until it's committed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
