Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Date: 2012-03-16 03:09:52
Message-ID: 20120316030952.GC8738@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:46:24PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I agree with you that some worst case performance tests should be
> > done. Could you please say what you think the worst cases would be, so
> > those can be tested? That would avoid wasting time or getting anything
> > backwards.
>
> I've thought about this some and here's what I've come up with so far:

I question whether we are in a position to do the testing necessary to
commit this for 9.2.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-03-16 04:06:17 Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-03-16 03:08:29 Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt