| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 19:12:54 |
| Message-ID: | m2tyc2epu1.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> IMHO, it's better to just have a deadline,
Well, that's the fine point we're now talking about.
I still think that we should try at making the best release possible.
And if that means including changes at beta time because that's when
someone got around to doing them, so be it — well, they should really
worth it.
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.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-06 19:18:28 | Re: SAVEPOINTs and COMMIT performance |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-06-06 18:49:29 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |