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

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-06-06T22:29:06Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Dimitri Fontaine's message of lun jun 06 15:12:54 -0400 2011:

> 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.

Maybe so, but the problem is that the patch is really WIP at this point
and it obviously still needs a lot of work, judging from the patch
author's comments.

I note that if 2nd Quadrant is interested in having a game-changing
platform without having to wait a full year for 9.2, they can obviously
distribute a modified version of Postgres that integrates Robert's
patch.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support