| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-07 17:56:05 |
| Message-ID: | 16890.1307469365@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> As long as we have solidarity of the committers that this is not allowed, however, this is not a real problem. And it appears that we do. In the future, it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.
> Solidarity?
> Simon - who was a committer last time I checked - seems to think that
> the current process is entirely bunko. And that is resulting in the
> waste of a lot of time that could be better spent.
Yes. If it were anybody but Simon, we wouldn't be spending a lot of
time on it; we'd just say "sorry, this has to wait for 9.2" and that
would be the end of it. As things stand, we have to convince him not to
commit these things ... or else be prepared to fight a war over whether
to revert them, which will be even more time-consuming and
trust-destroying.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-07 17:59:33 | Re: Range Types and extensions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-07 17:53:23 | Re: 9.1 release scheduling (was Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch) |