Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Date: 2011-06-04 16:33:38
Message-ID: 4DEA1812020000250003E163@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:

> we should be considering this for inclusion in 9.1, not wait
> another year.

-1

I'm really happy that we're addressing the problems with scaling to
a large number of cores, and this patch sounds great. Adding a new
feature at this point in the release cycle would be horrible.
Frankly, from the tone of Robert's post, it probably wouldn't be
appropriate to include it in a release if it showed up in this
condition at the start of the last CF for that release.

The nice thing about annual releases is there's never one too far
away -- unless, of course, we hold up a release up to squeeze in
"just one more" feature.

-Kevin

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hitoshi Harada 2011-06-04 16:47:27 Re: Pull up aggregate subquery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-04 16:30:09 plperl fails with perl 5.14.0