On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> A larger question, which I think has been raised before but I have not >>> seen a satisfactory answer for, is whether the system will behave sanely >>> at all with this type of patch in place. > >> I am not too sure what you think this might break? > > I'm not sure either. If we weren't at the tail end of a devel cycle, > with a large/destabilizing patch already in there that has a great deal > of exposure to details of locking behavior, I'd not be so worried. > > Maybe the right thing is to bounce this back to be reconsidered in the > first fest of the next cycle. It's not ready to commit anyway because > of the portability problems, so ...
That seems reasonable to me. I'd like to have the functionality, but pushing it off a release sounds reasonable, if we're worried that it will be destabilizing. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
