| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-08 22:10:10 |
| Message-ID: | 5889.1307571010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Simon,
>> The point I have made is that I disagree with a feature freeze date
>> fixed ahead of time without regard to the content of the forthcoming
>> release. I've not said I disagree with feature freezes altogether,
>> which would be utterly ridiculous. Fixed dates are IMHO much less
>> important than a sensible and useful feature set for our users.
> This is such a non-argument it's silly.
Perhaps more to the point, we've tried that approach in the past,
repeatedly, and it's been a scheduling disaster every single time.
Slipping the release date in order to get in newly-written features,
no matter *how* attractive they are, does not work. Maybe there are
people who can make it work, but not us.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2011-06-08 22:20:15 | Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-06-08 22:09:51 | Re: tuning autovacuum |