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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: 2011-06-08 16:44:48
Message-ID: BANLkTi=07-6ehMDFpGdTPrqJ7z9VL-Y86g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> As a result of this, I've been insulted, told I have no respect for
> process and even suggested there was a threat of patch war.

Well, you've pretty much said flat out you don't like the process, and
you don't agree with having a firm feature freeze. I think it's a
perfectly legitimate question to ask whether we're going to have to
continually relitigate that point. This is at least the second major
dust-up on this point since the end of 9.1CF4, and there were some
smaller ones, too.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-06-08 16:54:34 Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Previous Message Andrew Chernow 2011-06-08 16:44:37 Re: Error in PQsetvalue