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

On 6/6/11 12:12 PM, Dimitri Fontaine 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.

I could not disagree more strongly. We're in *beta* now. It's not like
the last CF closed a couple weeks ago. Heck, I'm about to open the
first CF for 9.2 in just over a week.

Also, a patch like this needs several months of development, discussion
and testing in order to fix the issues Robert already identified and
make sure it doesn't break something fundamental to concurrency. Which
would mean delaying the release would be delayed until at least
November, screwing over all the users who don't care about this patch.

There will *always* be another really cool patch. If we keep delaying
release to get in one more patch, then we never release. At some point
you just have to take what you have and call it a release, and we are
months past that point.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com