Greg Smith wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >Yeah, the API they implemented wasn't ideal, so there was some > >discussion that ended up with a specification everyone was happy with, > >but then nobody got around to implementing it. > > I needed something like this and didn't implement those suggestions > because I thought the whole idea didn't scale up enough. That's > close to the right API to allow more complicated regression tests in > psql itself, but I doubted that would hit real complexity level > needed to find the good concurrent bugs.
I don't find this a compelling argument against concurrent psql. Sure there are things you can't do with it, but it doesn't mean it's not useful. Are we going to need further tools to find "the good concurrent bugs"? No doubt. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
