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

Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Simon,
>> The point I have made is that I disagree with a feature freeze date
>> fixed ahead of time without regard to the content of the forthcoming
>> release. I've not said I disagree with feature freezes altogether,
>> which would be utterly ridiculous. Fixed dates are IMHO much less
>> important than a sensible and useful feature set for our users.

> This is such a non-argument it's silly.

Perhaps more to the point, we've tried that approach in the past,
repeatedly, and it's been a scheduling disaster every single time.
Slipping the release date in order to get in newly-written features,
no matter *how* attractive they are, does not work.  Maybe there are
people who can make it work, but not us.

			regards, tom lane