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

On 06/06/2011 09:24 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> So, to the question “do we want hard deadlines?” I think the answer is
>> “no”, to “do we need hard deadlines?”, my answer is still “no”, and to
>> the question “does this very change should be considered this late?” my
>> answer is yes.
>>
>> Because it really changes the game for PostgreSQL users.
>
> Much as I hate to say it (I too want to keep our schedule as
> predictable and organised as possible), I have to agree. Assuming the
> patch is good, I think this is something we should push into 9.1. It
> really could be a game changer.

I disagree - the proposed patch maybe provides a very significant
improvment for a certain workload type(nothing less but nothing more),
but it was posted way after -BETA and I'm not sure we yet understand all
implications of the changes.
We also have to consider that the underlying issues are known problems
for multiple years^releases so I don't think there is a particular rush
to force them into a particular release (as in 9.1).

Stefan