| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 16:40:10 |
| Message-ID: | 9029.1393951210@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think this is all too late for 9.4, though.
I agree with the feeling that a meaningful fix for pg_dump isn't going
to get done for 9.4. So that leaves us with the alternatives of
(1) put off the lock-strength-reduction patch for another year;
(2) push it anyway and accept a reduction in pg_dump reliability.
I don't care for (2). I'd like to have lock strength reduction as
much as anybody, but it can't come at the price of reduction of
reliability.
The bigger picture here is that it seems like anytime I've thought
for more than five minutes about the lock strength reduction patch,
I've come up with some fundamental problem. That doesn't leave me
with a warm feeling that we're getting close to having something
committable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-03-04 16:45:03 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-03-04 16:38:37 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |