On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I've explained all of the above points to you already and you're wrong.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. > Do you advocate that all ALTER TABLE operations use > AccessExclusiveLock, or just the operations I added? If you see > problems here, then you must also be willing to increase the lock > strength of things such as INHERITS, and back patch them to where the > same problems exist. You'll wriggle out of that, I'm sure. There are > regrettably, many bugs here and they can't be fixed in the simple > manner you propose. I think there is quite a lot of difference between realizing that we can't fix every problem, and deciding to put out a release that adds a whole lot more of them that we have no plans to fix. > It's not me you block Robert, I'm not actually a user and I will sleep > well whatever happens, happy that I tried to resolve this. Users watch > and remember. If you are proposing that I should worry about a posse of angry PostgreSQL users hunting me down (or abandoning the product) because I agreed with Tom Lane on the necessity of reverting one of your patches, then I'm willing to take that chance. For one thing, there's a pretty good chance they'll go after Tom first. For two things, there's at least an outside chance I might be rescued by an alternative posse who supports our tradition of putting out high quality releases. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
