Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... I think at the next developer meeting we're going to
> get to hear Tom argue that overlapping the end of beta with the
> beginning of the next release cycle is a mistake and we should go back
> to the old system where we yell at everyone to shut up unless they're
> helping test or fix bugs.

I think we have already got quite enough evidence to conclude that this
approach is broken. Not only does it appear that hardly anybody but me
is actively working on stabilizing 9.1, but I'm wasting quite a bit of
my time trying to keep Simon from destabilizing it; to say nothing of
reacting to design proposals for 9.2 work (or else feeling guilty
because I'm ignoring them, which is in fact what I've mostly been
doing).

As a measure of how completely this is not working: I've had "read the
SSI code" as a number one priority item for about two months now, and
still haven't found time to read one line of it.

> Everyone who is arguing for the inclusion of this patch in 9.1 should
> take a minute to think about the following fact: If the PostgreSQL
> development process does not work for Tom, it does not work.

I'd like to think that I'm not the sole driver of this process.
However, if everybody else is going to start playing in their 9.2
sandbox and ignore getting a release out, then yeah it comes down
to how much bandwidth I've got. And that's finite.

regards, tom lane