Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Simon seems to value backward-compatibility more than the average
> > hackers poster. ?The lack of complaints about 9.1 I think means that the
> > hackers decision of _not_ providing a swich was the right one.
>
> So its been out 1 month and you think that is sufficient time for us
> to decide that there are no user complaints about SSI? I doubt it.
> Longer term I have every confidence that it will be appreciated.
>
> I'm keen to ensure people enjoy the possibility of upgrading to the
> latest release. The continual need to retest applications mean that
> very few users upgrade quickly or with anywhere near the frequency
> with which we put out new releases. What is the point of rushing out
> software that nobody can use? pg_upgrade doesn't change your
> applications, so there isn't a fast path to upgrade in the way you
> seem to think.

Simon, I basically think you are swimming up-stream on this issue, and
on the recovery.conf thread as well. You can keep arguing that backward
compatibility warrants more effort, but until there is more general
agreement in the group, you are going to lose these arguments, and
frankly, the arguments are getting tiring.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +