Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 03:06:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob
> > does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution. As
> > everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be
> > needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such
> > testing in the 9.3 timeframe. This problem needs to be attacked in
> > an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under
> > time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing.
>
> Well, it has been tackled like that and we've *all* got nowhere. No
> worries, I can wait a year for that beer.

This was the obvious result of this discussion --- it is a shame we had
to discuss this rather than working on more pressing 9.3 issues. I also
think someone saying "I would like to apply this now" is more disruptive
than casual discussion about things like buffer count locking.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +