Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Date: 2011-06-07 18:55:49
Message-ID: 18144.1307472949@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Before you arrived, it was quite normal to suggest tuning patches
> after feature freeze.

*Low risk* tuning patches make sense at this stage, yes. Fooling with
the lock mechanisms doesn't qualify as low risk in my book. The
probability of undetected subtle problems is just too great.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2011-06-07 19:24:07 Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-07 18:45:41 Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch