| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Date: | 2006-12-01 19:02:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1352.1164999733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> So, I think it needs to go on the list for 8.2.1 or 8.3 (depending on what
> changes the fix requires) but I don't think we should hold up the release.
That's pretty much my feeling as well. The thing is that postponing 8.2
any further will deprive users of a lot of good stuff, in order to fix a
problem that apparently isn't biting anyone in the field. And it's not
clear that we can fix this on a shorter-than-8.3-ish timescale anyway.
The only obvious solution involves adding another header field, which
I'm sure is not very acceptable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Troy | 2006-12-01 19:09:08 | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-12-01 18:55:05 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luiz Claudio da Silva Leão | 2006-12-01 19:02:57 | Problems to create the portuguese dictionary |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-12-01 18:55:05 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |