On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> The cost to us is a few days work and the benefit is a whole year's >> worth of increased performance for our user base, which has a hardware >> equivalent well into the millions of dollars. > > I doubt that this is an accurate reflection of the cost. > > What was presented by Robert Haas was a "proof of concept," and he > pointed out that it had numerous problems. To requote: > > "There are numerous problems with the code as it stands at this point. > It crashes if you try to use 2PC, which means the regression tests > fail; it probably does horrible things if you run out of shared > memory; pg_locks knows nothing about the new mechanism (arguably, we > could leave it that way: only locks that can't possibly be conflicting > with anything can be taken using this mechanism, but it would be nice > to fix, I think); and there are likely some other gotchas as well."
The latest version of the patch is in much better shape: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00403.php But this is not intended as disparagement for the balance of your argument. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
