Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Date
Msg-id 4DEFB708.6040406@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 06/07/2011 11:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon@2ndQuadrant.com>  writes:
>> Before you arrived, it was quite normal to suggest tuning patches
>> after feature freeze.
>
> *Low risk* tuning patches make sense at this stage, yes.  Fooling with
> the lock mechanisms doesn't qualify as low risk in my book.  The
> probability of undetected subtle problems is just too great.
>
>             regards, tom lane

I would like to see us continue on the path of release not 
destabilization. Any patch that breaks into core feature mechanisms 
(like locking) is bound to have something unsuspecting in the wings.

+1 for submitting for 9.2.
+1 for not comitting to 9.1.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table
Next
From: Alex Hunsaker
Date:
Subject: gcc 4.6 and hot standby