From: | Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Date: | 2006-12-01 19:09:08 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0612011106130.27353-100000@denzel.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So at this point we are facing three options:
> - throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment;
> - postpone 8.2 until we can think of a real fix, which might
> be a major undertaking;
> - ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1 had.
> None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last
> is the least bad.
>
> regards, tom lane
I'd go with that last option; it's important to get this release out now,
I think, as it has a lot of value add, and people get it that things
aren't always perfect. I do, however, feel that the "real fix" is vital,
whenever it can occur. It's attention to detail like this that elevates
this group from good to great.
Richard
--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com, http://ScienceTools.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-01 19:16:27 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-01 19:02:13 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-01 19:16:27 | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-01 19:05:07 | Re: small pg_dump RFE: new --no-prompt (password) option |