On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce > the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from > now, since we know we will need that info later.
At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're going to have it, we should make it work, as in fact it did before you changed it without discussion. You haven't offered any evidence at all that it introduces any kind of a performance regression AT ALL, much less that such any such regression can't be trivially patched around by making SyncRepReleaseWaiters exit quickly if the flush LSN hasn't advanced. The onus is as much on you to justify the change as it is on me to justify changing it back. -- 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
