Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> [ shrug... ] I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing >> utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. Simon rejected that. >> I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field >> (and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before >> I argue with him further. Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything >> unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
> Oh. I thought you had ignored his objections and fixed it. Why are > we releasing 9.0 with this problem again? Surely this is nuts. My original review of hot standby found about half a dozen things I thought were broken: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00178.php After a *very* long-drawn-out fight I fixed one of them (max_standby_delay), largely still over Simon's objections. I don't have the energy to repeat that another half-dozen times, so I'm going to wait for the suspected problems to be proven by field experience. 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
