Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > Simon seems to value backward-compatibility more than the average
>> > hackers poster. ?The lack of complaints about 9.1 I think means that the
>> > hackers decision of _not_ providing a swich was the right one.
>>
>> So its been out 1 month and you think that is sufficient time for us
>> to decide that there are no user complaints about SSI? I doubt it.
>> Longer term I have every confidence that it will be appreciated.
>>
>> I'm keen to ensure people enjoy the possibility of upgrading to the
>> latest release. The continual need to retest applications mean that
>> very few users upgrade quickly or with anywhere near the frequency
>> with which we put out new releases. What is the point of rushing out
>> software that nobody can use? pg_upgrade doesn't change your
>> applications, so there isn't a fast path to upgrade in the way you
>> seem to think.
>
> Simon, I basically think you are swimming up-stream on this issue, and
> on the recovery.conf thread as well.  You can keep arguing that backward
> compatibility warrants more effort, but until there is more general
> agreement in the group, you are going to lose these arguments, and
> frankly, the arguments are getting tiring.

I speak when it is important that someone does so, and only on
specific, real issues.

When I speak, I do so on behalf of my clients and other Postgres users
that suffer the problems created by those issues. I've never given a
viewpoint on list that I know to be the opposite of the majority of
people I represent.

How could I change the viewpoint of the group without making rational
arguments when it matters?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services