On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce >> the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from >> now, since we know we will need that info later. > > At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry > around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no > objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're going to > have it, we should make it work, as in fact it did before you changed > it without discussion. You haven't offered any evidence at all that > it introduces any kind of a performance regression AT ALL, much less > that such any such regression can't be trivially patched around by > making SyncRepReleaseWaiters exit quickly if the flush LSN hasn't > advanced. The onus is as much on you to justify the change as it is > on me to justify changing it back.
What a stupid conversation. There's no onus on me to have to keep justifying to you why the code is the way it is, but I do. If you want to make a change that I already know reduces performance, you have to have a good reason. So far, you don't. Stop fussing and wrap the release. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
