On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> And I don't > >> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people > >> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables > >> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby. > > > The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement > > things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot > > Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say > > Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored. > > The current definition of Hot Standby is that it's a *read only* > behavior. Not read mostly. What you are proposing is a rather > fundamental change in the behavior of HS, and it doesn't seem to me > that it should be on the head of anybody else to make it work.
That's a dangerous precedent you just set. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
