On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:15:38PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:

> against a simple N1->N2 setup bombarded with a -c5 pgbench. That isn't 
> quite the testing you want to have done before committing such a 
> substantial change in the inner core log selection logic of STABLE code, 
> is it?

What, we're not gonna pants-seat fly?  Sigh.  No guts, no glory ;-)

Seriously, I agree with Jan here: let's be _really_ conservative with
this one.  Indeed, given that it's a small patch, I'd be inclined to
issue a .11 with a contrib/pgq-apprach.patch file and suggest people
try it before back patching for real.  The HEAD is a good place for
architectural changes, but the supposedly STABLE releases aren't. 
I'm not a fan of the Linux-style, "rewrite the PCI subsystem in
x.x.8" STABLE-style releases.  And I think this project has been
often enough bitten by such exuberance that we should be cautious.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
		--Alexander Hamilton