| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-06 19:24:33 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikLSOwTp8rvWaihLsyoYmh=ndjM0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2011-06-06 19:40:14 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-06-06 19:18:36 | Re: Range Types and extensions |