Re: Rollback in Postgres

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 22:54 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk> writes:
> >> But yes, it has to be enabled, and yes it has to have a performance cost
> >> somehow, but people are requesting it, and somehow I don't think Oracle
> >> developed the feature just for fun.
> >
> > No, they developed it for marketing.
>
> No, they developed it because it was needed.

I agree such improvements would be welcomed. I'm pretty sure they sat
around saying we can already do that some other way at first, until the
requests started to pile up.

> > Stuff that they see fit to add is not necessarily going to be on our radar
> > screen in the foreseeable future.

I'm not clear on why there should be an inherent delay. I think
PostgreSQL adoption is mostly held back by operational features, like
performance management, locking, backup.

But we're mainly constrained on people's time, i.e. money. And AFAICS
nothing like this is going to happen in this release.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support