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

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> ... I think at the next developer meeting we're going to
>> get to hear Tom argue that overlapping the end of beta with the
>> beginning of the next release cycle is a mistake and we should go back
>> to the old system where we yell at everyone to shut up unless they're
>> helping test or fix bugs.
>
> I think we have already got quite enough evidence to conclude that this
> approach is broken.  Not only does it appear that hardly anybody but me
> is actively working on stabilizing 9.1, but I'm wasting quite a bit of
> my time trying to keep Simon from destabilizing it; to say nothing of
> reacting to design proposals for 9.2 work (or else feeling guilty
> because I'm ignoring them, which is in fact what I've mostly been
> doing).
>
> As a measure of how completely this is not working: I've had "read the
> SSI code" as a number one priority item for about two months now, and
> still haven't found time to read one line of it.
>
>> Everyone who is arguing for the inclusion of this patch in 9.1 should
>> take a minute to think about the following fact: If the PostgreSQL
>> development process does not work for Tom, it does not work.
>
> I'd like to think that I'm not the sole driver of this process.
> However, if everybody else is going to start playing in their 9.2
> sandbox and ignore getting a release out, then yeah it comes down
> to how much bandwidth I've got.  And that's finite.

I plead guilty to taking my eye off the ball post-beta1. I busted my
ass for two months stabilizing other people's code after CF4 was over,
and then I moved on to other things. I will try to get my eye back on
the ball - but actually I'm not sure there's all that much to do. A
quick review of the open items list suggests that we have fixed a
total of six issues since beta1, as opposed to 47 prior to beta1. And
all of those are being handled (two by you). I also don't see much in
the way of unanswered 9.1 bug reports on pgsql-bugs, either. There
may well be other open items, and I'm not unwilling to work on them,
but I don't read minds. What needs doing?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company