| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
| Date: | 2013-03-26 14:44:06 |
| Message-ID: | 10893.1364309046@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So please, lets go with a simple solution now that allows users to say
> what they want.
Simon, this is just empty posturing, as your arguments have nothing
whatsoever to do with whether the above description applies to your
patch.
More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob
does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution. As
everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be
needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such
testing in the 9.3 timeframe. This problem needs to be attacked in
an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under
time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-26 15:00:11 | Back-branch security updates coming next week |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-03-26 13:45:19 | Re: pg_dump in current master segfaults when dumping 9.2/9.1 databases |