Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2005-12-30 22:50:21
Message-ID: 1135983021.5052.94.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > This was discussed on-list by 2 core team members, a committer and
> > myself, but I see no requirements change here. You even accepted the
> > invisible COPY optimization in your last post - why unpick that now?
> > Please forgive my tone, but I am lost for reasonable yet expressive
> > words.
>
> Do you think you are the only one who has rewritten a patch multiple
> times? We all have. The goal is to get the functionality into the
> system in the most seamless way possible. Considering the number of
> people who use PostgreSQL, if it takes use 10 tries, it is worth it
> considering the thousands of people who will use it. Would you have us
> include a sub-optimal patch and have thousands of people adjust to its
> non-optimal functionality? I am sure you would not. Perhaps a company
> would say, "Oh, just ship it", but we don't.

You're right.

Not like we've not been here before, eh?

[I'll look at the tech another day]

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-12-30 22:52:49 Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-12-30 22:46:45 Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and