Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On 27 January 2014 20:47, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC.
>
>> I'm pretty surprised that it's been suggested that some people might
>> prefer AccessExclusiveLocks. Why would anyone prefer that?
>
> For one thing, so they can back this out if it proves to be broken,
> as the last committed version was.

Agreed

> Given that this patch was marked
> (by its author) as Ready for Committer without any review in the current
> CF

True. The main review happened in a previous commitfest and there was
a small addition for this CF.

It was my understanding that you wanted us to indicate that to allow
you to review. I am happy to set status differently, as you wish,
presumably back to needs review.

>I can't say that I have any faith in it.

That's a shame.

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