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

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: 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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:44:41
Message-ID: 20110606194441.GQ18128@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org) wrote:
> Much as I hate to say it (I too want to keep our schedule as
> predictable and organised as possible), I have to agree. Assuming the
> patch is good, I think this is something we should push into 9.1. It
> really could be a game changer.

So, with folks putting up that we should hammer this patch out and
force it into 9.1.. What should our new release date for 9.1 be? What
about other patches that didn't make it into 9.1? What about the
upcoming CommitFest that we've asked people to start working on?

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.

I don't agree that we should delay 9.1, but if people really want this
in, then we need to figure out what the new schedule is going to be.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2011-06-06 19:50:01 Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2011-06-06 19:40:14 Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch