| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-06 23:29:00 |
| Message-ID: | 15444.1307402940@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> If we're going to start putting in changes like this, I'd suggest that
>> we try and target something like September for 9.1 to actually be
>> released. Playing with the lock management isn't something we want to
>> be doing lightly and I think we definitely need to have serious testing
>> of this, similar to what has been done for the SSI changes, before we're
>> going to be able to release it.
> Completely aside from the issue at hand, aren't we looking at a
> September release by now anyway (assuming we have to void late
> July/August as we usually do)?
Very possibly. So if we add this in, we're talking November or December
instead of September. You can't argue that July/August will be lost
time for one development path but not another.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Creager | 2011-06-06 23:30:12 | CREATE FUNCTION hang on test machine polecat on HEAD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-06 23:23:55 | Re: Range Types and extensions |