Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> So let's fix the 80% case with something we feel confident in, and then
> revisit the no-sysv interlock as a separate patch. That way if we can't
> fix the interlock issues, we still have a reduced-shmem version of Postgres.
Yes. Insisting that we have the whole change in one patch is a good way
to prevent any forward progress from happening. As Alvaro noted, there
are plenty of issues to resolve without trying to change the interlock
mechanism at the same time.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
