Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>
From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2011-06-06T19:12:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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