Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay

On 26 March 2013 01:35, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'll bet you all a beer at PgCon 2014 that this remains unresolved at
>> that point.
>
> Are you saying you're only interested in working on it now? That after
> 9.3 is release you won't be interested in working on it any more?
>
> As you said we've been eyeing this particular logic since 2004, why
> did it suddenly become more urgent now? Why didn't you work on it 9
> months ago at the beginning of the release cycle?

I'm not sure why your comments are so confrontational here, but I
don't think it helps much. I'm happy to buy you a beer too.

As I explained clearly in my first post, this idea came about trying
to improve on the negative aspects of the checksum patch. People were
working on ideas 9 months ago to resolve this, but they have come to
nothing. I regret that; Merlin and others have worked hard to find a
way: Respect to them.

My suggestion is to implement a feature that takes 1 day to write and
needs little testing to show it works. I'm happy to pursue that path
now, or later. Deciding we need an all-singing, all-dancing solution
that will take our best men (another) 6 months of hard arguing and
implementation is by far the best way I know of killing anything and I
won't be pursuing that route. If we did have 6 months funding for
any-feature-you-like, I wouldn't spend it all on this. My bet that
nobody else will have enough patience, time and skill, let alone
unpaid leave to follow that path, stands.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services