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

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>

Date: 2011-06-07T18:06:32Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> As long as we have solidarity of the committers that this is not allowed, however, this is not a real problem.  And it appears that we do.  In the future, it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.
>
> Solidarity?
>
> Simon - who was a committer last time I checked - seems to think that
> the current process is entirely bunko.

I'm not sure why anyone that disagrees with you should be accused of
wanting to junk the whole process. I've not said that and I don't
think this.

Before you arrived, it was quite normal to suggest tuning patches
after feature freeze.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services