On 06.06.2011 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
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.
FWIW, this bottleneck was not introduced by the introduction of virtual
transaction ids. Before that patch, we just took the lock on the real
transaction id instead.
The fact that you disagree with me does not make me insane.
You are not insane, even if your suggestion is.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
