| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4 |
| Date: | 2010-03-14 07:52:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1268553164.3825.4949.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > It's also my 3rd choice of solution behind fine-grained lock conflicts
> > (1st) which would avoid many issues and master/standby in lock step
> > (2nd).
>
> Yeah, I just can't imagine you hunting down all of the corner cases for
> fine-grained lock conflicts in time for 9.0. Given what I've been
> looking at, it seems like a LOT of work.
I can imagine and have done so. That patch was completed more than 6
weeks ago and can still be included in this release.
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org/msg145951.html
That is at least the second attempt at this feature and the design has
been refined over about 15 months.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-03-14 22:36:47 | Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-03-13 23:29:54 | Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergej Galkin | 2010-03-14 13:50:41 | how to use advanced gist options |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-03-13 23:29:54 | Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4 |