Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 15 October 2014 17:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, I'm fervently in agreement with you on one point: the first
>> version of all this needs to be as simple as possible, or the time to
>> get to the first version will be longer than we can afford to wait. I
>> think what we're discussing here is which things are important enough
>> that it makes sense to have them in the first version, and which
>> things can wait.
>
> I'm guessing we might differ slightly on what constitutes as simple as possible.

Yes, I believe there have been occasions in the past when that has
happened, so definitely possible. :-)

> Something usable, with severe restrictions, is actually better than we
> have now. I understand the journey this work represents, so don't be
> embarrassed by submitting things with heuristics and good-enoughs in
> it. Our mentor, Mr.Lane, achieved much by spreading work over many
> releases, leaving others to join in the task.
>
> Might I gently enquire what the "something usable" we are going to see
> in this release? I'm not up on current plans.

I don't know how far I'm going to get for this release yet. I think
pg_background is a pretty good milestone, and useful in its own right.
I would like to get something that's truly parallel working sooner
rather than later, but this group locking issue is one of 2 or 3
significant hurdles that I need to climb over first.

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