On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > What's blocking it is that (afaik) no committer agrees with the approach > taken to solve the concurrency problems. And several (Heikki, Robert, > me) have stated their dislike of the proposed approach.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "approach to concurrency problems". It's not as if a consensus has emerged in favor of another approach, and if there is to be another approach, the details need to be worked out ASAP. Even still, I would appreciate it if people could review the patch on the assumption that those issues will be worked out. After all, there are plenty of other parts to this that have nothing to do with value locking - the entire "top half", which has significant subtleties (some involving concurrency) in its own right, reasonably well encapsulated from value locking. A couple of weeks ago, I felt good about the fact that it seemed "time was on my side" 9.5-wise, but maybe that isn't true. Working through the community process for this patch is going to be very difficult. I think everyone understands that there could be several ways of implementing value locking. I really do think it's a well encapsulated aspect of the patch, though, so even if you hate how I've implemented value locking, please try and give feedback on everything else. Simon wanted to start with the user-visible semantics, which makes sense, but I see no reason to limit it to that. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers