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

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> 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 certainly need to be happy with the implications if we were to make
such a decision.

> 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).

No, there's no *technical* reason we need to do this, as there would
be if it were a bug fix for example. I would just like to see us
narrow the gap with our competitors sooner rather than later, *if*
we're a) happy with the change, and b) we're talking about a minimal
delay (which we may be - Robert says he thinks the patch is good, so
with another review and beta testing....).

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company