On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 15 October 2014 17:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, I'm fervently in agreement with you on one point: the first >> version of all this needs to be as simple as possible, or the time to >> get to the first version will be longer than we can afford to wait. I >> think what we're discussing here is which things are important enough >> that it makes sense to have them in the first version, and which >> things can wait. > > I'm guessing we might differ slightly on what constitutes as simple as > possible.
Yes, I believe there have been occasions in the past when that has happened, so definitely possible. :-) > Something usable, with severe restrictions, is actually better than we > have now. I understand the journey this work represents, so don't be > embarrassed by submitting things with heuristics and good-enoughs in > it. Our mentor, Mr.Lane, achieved much by spreading work over many > releases, leaving others to join in the task. > > Might I gently enquire what the "something usable" we are going to see > in this release? I'm not up on current plans. I don't know how far I'm going to get for this release yet. I think pg_background is a pretty good milestone, and useful in its own right. I would like to get something that's truly parallel working sooner rather than later, but this group locking issue is one of 2 or 3 significant hurdles that I need to climb over first. -- 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
