Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> I was going to try to scare up some resources to advance this if we
>> could get to some consensus. I don't get the feeling we're there
>> yet. Suggestions welcome.
>
> I think I might've said this before, but I think you need to do (or
> get someone with knowledge of the code to do) more looking at the
> lock bookkeeping that's required to make the SIREAD stuff work and
> try to figure out if it's even feasible for PostgreSQL and what the
> performance costs would be (an idea of how much code complexity this
> would introduce would be good too). A lot of the "lack of
> consensus" at this point looks to me more like "lack of being sure
> whether this can actually work". I don't know that we're going to
> get any closer to consensus without some less-handwavy answer to
> that question.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable about trying to go that route if there
weren't heavy hitters insisting that "no serialization failures
without a reason that can be easily explained to users" is a
requirement. I don't believe it will ever work that way, so I see no
point moving farther. Either that requirement needs to be removed, or
someone who thinks it can be made to work that way will have to take
up the cause if this is to go anywhere.
I do agree, wholeheartedly, that if we get consensus on functional
requirements, the next step would be to identify the specific changes
required. In other words, I haven't forgotten your previous
suggestion, and it seems like the *next* step if we can wrap *this*
one.
-Kevin