| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2014-01-28 17:54:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+7JxUKSqnk_aQUv8cOvFJykCqUP_QpCnT8XmjNyr+B6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 January 2014 17:21, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone would want to turn this feature off, ie.
> require stronger locks than necessary for a DDL change.
Nobody would *want* to turn it off. They might need to, as explained.
> If we're not confident that the patch is correct, then it should not be
> applied. If we are confident enough to commit it, and a bug crops up later,
> we'll fix the bug as usual.
I'd like to point out here that my own customers are already well
covered by the support services we offer. They will receive any such
fix very quickly.
My proposal was of assistance only to those without such contracts in
place, as are many of my proposals.
It doesn't bother me at all if you insist it should not be added. Just
choose v16 of the patch for review rather than v17.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-01-28 17:58:20 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-01-28 17:48:33 | Re: GSoC 2014 - mentors, students and admins |