Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2012-01-02 19:14:38
Message-ID: 28045.1325531678@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um ... timings of what?

> Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation.

But you still didn't. I wanted to know what those numbers were and how
they show that there's not a performance regression. Presumably you
meant that some were "before" and some "after", but they were not so
labeled.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-01-02 19:25:25 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-02 19:13:00 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe