On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>>> >>>> 2. Synchronous replication. Splitting up this patch has allowed some >> On top of 4 listed reviewers I know Dan Farina is poking at the last update, >> so we may see one more larger report on top of what's already shown up. And >> Jaime keeps kicking the tires too. What Simon was hoping is that a week of >> others looking at this would produce enough feedback that it might be >> possible to sweep the remaining issues up soon after he's back. It looks to >> me like that's about when everything else that's still open will probably >> settle too. > > Besides some of the fixable issues, I am going to have to echo > Robert's sentiments about a few kinks that go beyond mechanism in the > syncrep patch: in particular, it will *almost* solve the use case I > was hoping to solve: a way to cleanly perform planned switchovers > between machines with minimal downtime and no lost data. But there are > a couple of holes I have thought of so far:
Well, just because the patch doesn't solve every use case isn't a reason not to go forward with it - we can always add more options later - but I have to admit that I'm kind of alarmed about the number of bugs reported so far. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
