From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(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 19:51:20 |
Message-ID: | 4DED2FB8.3070300@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/06/2011 03:24 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dimitri Fontaine<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> So, to the question “do we want hard deadlines?” I think the answer is
>> “no”, to “do we need hard deadlines?”, my answer is still “no”, and to
>> the question “does this very change should be considered this late?” my
>> answer is yes.
>>
>> Because it really changes the game for PostgreSQL users.
> 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.
I'm not a fan of hard and fast deadlines for releases - it puts too much
pressure on us to release before we might be ready. But I'm also not a
fan of totally abandoning our established processes, which accepting
this would. I don't mind bending the rules a bit occasionally; I do mind
throwing them out the door.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-06-06 19:52:43 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-06-06 19:50:29 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |