Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2011-06-20 17:21:59
Message-ID: 4DFF3B67020000250003E9CF@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm currently on the other end of the spectrum: ignore and
> consider for 9.2.

I guess part of my point was that if we can't safely get something
into the initial 9.1 release, it doesn't mean we necessarily need to
wait for 9.2. Bugs can be fixed along the way in minor releases. A
9.1.1 fix might give us more time to work through details and ensure
that it is a safe and well-targeted fix.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-20 17:22:06 Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2011-06-20 17:16:43 Re: Range Types and extensions