| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-08 17:53:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4DEFB708.6040406@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/07/2011 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Before you arrived, it was quite normal to suggest tuning patches
>> after feature freeze.
>
> *Low risk* tuning patches make sense at this stage, yes. Fooling with
> the lock mechanisms doesn't qualify as low risk in my book. The
> probability of undetected subtle problems is just too great.
>
> regards, tom lane
I would like to see us continue on the path of release not
destabilization. Any patch that breaks into core feature mechanisms
(like locking) is bound to have something unsuspecting in the wings.
+1 for submitting for 9.2.
+1 for not comitting to 9.1.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2011-06-08 18:12:48 | gcc 4.6 and hot standby |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-08 17:52:22 | Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table |