On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The approach looks sound to me. It's a fairly isolated patch and we >> should be considering this for inclusion in 9.1, not wait another >> year. > > That suggestion is completely insane. The patch is only WIP and full of > bugs, even according to its author. Even if it were solid, it is way > too late to be pushing such stuff into 9.1. We're trying to ship a > release, not find ways to cause it to slip more.
In 8.3, you implemented virtual transactionids days before we produced a Release Candidate, against my recommendation. At that time, I didn't start questioning your sanity. In fact we all applauded that because it was a great performance gain. The fact that you disagree with me does not make me insane. Inaction on this point, resulting in a year's delay, will be considered to be a gross waste by the majority of objective observers. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
