From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
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 19:52:43 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=eVH6307jGvkDtKqVgvaPWCbeQUA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org) wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, with folks putting up that we should hammer this patch out and
> force it into 9.1.. What should our new release date for 9.1 be? What
> about other patches that didn't make it into 9.1? What about the
> upcoming CommitFest that we've asked people to start working on?
>
> If we're going to start putting in changes like this, I'd suggest that
> we try and target something like September for 9.1 to actually be
> released. Playing with the lock management isn't something we want to
> be doing lightly and I think we definitely need to have serious testing
> of this, similar to what has been done for the SSI changes, before we're
> going to be able to release it.
Completely aside from the issue at hand, aren't we looking at a
September release by now anyway (assuming we have to void late
July/August as we usually do)?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jignesh Shah | 2011-06-06 19:54:07 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-06-06 19:51:20 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |