Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

On 02/23/2012 10:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I completely understand that you don't want to review this latest
> version of the patch; it's a lot of effort and I wouldn't inflict it on
> anybody who hasn't not volunteered. However, it doesn't seem to me that
> this is reason to boot the patch from the commitfest. I think the thing
> to do would be to remove yourself from the reviewers column and set it
> back to "needs review", so that other reviewers can pick it up.

This feature made Robert's list of serious CF concerns, too, and the
idea that majorly revised patches might be punted isn't a new one. Noah
is certainly justified in saying you're off his community support list,
after all the review work he's been doing for this CF.

We here think it would be a shame for all of these other performance
bits to be sorted but still have this one loose though, if it's possible
to keep going on it. It's well known as something on Simon's peeve list
for some time now. I was just reading someone else ranting about how
this foreign key locking issue proves Postgres isn't "enterprise scale"
yesterday, it was part of an article proving why DB2 is worth paying for
I think. This change crosses over into the advocacy area due to that,
albeit only for the people who have been burned by this already.

If the main problem is pg_upgrade complexity, eventually progress on
that front needs to be made. I'm surprised the project has survived
this long without needing anything beyond catalog conversion for
in-place upgrade. That luck won't hold forever.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com