| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <peter(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
| Date: | 2012-06-02 14:44:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4FC9E07B0200002500047F9D@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 31 May 2012 15:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If we want to finish the beta cycle in a reasonable time period
>>> and get back to actual development, we have to refrain from
>>> adding more possibly-destabilizing development work to 9.2. And
>>> that is what this is.
>
>> In what way is it possibly destabilising?
>
> I'm prepared to believe that it only affects performance, but it
> could be destabilizing to that. It needs proper review and testing,
> and the next CF is the right environment for that to happen.
+1
This is not a bug fix or even a fix for a performance regression.
The train has left the station; the next one will be along shortly.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-02 14:49:00 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers. |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-06-02 13:35:24 | Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea |