| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
| Date: | 2014-10-31 15:02:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLWE_RM31Odc2L7SPtddgkpDqeoZv+UKmLeZJ5sZ-xYPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 October 2014 12:54, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Turing's theorem being what it is, predicting what catalog tables
> the child might lock is not necessarily simple.
The Pareto principle offers ways to cope with the world's lack of simplicity.
You mentioned earlier that functions would need to be marked proisparallel etc..
What conditions will that be protecting against? If we aren't going to
support the general case where every single thing works, can we at
least discuss what the list of cases is that we will support.
I don't think we can argue that everything must be generic when we
already admit it won't be.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-31 15:03:45 | Re: Temp tables, pg_class_temp and AccessExclusiveLocks |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-31 14:53:24 | Temp tables, pg_class_temp and AccessExclusiveLocks |