On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Neither do I. It's pretty clear from our last discussion that the > "fix" proposed doesn't actually work fully so I don't think its going > to be either more robust or more certain to give low false positives. > So I don't think more time "fixing" this will actually improve the > situation.
I hope that's not true, and I certainly don't think it's true. Like Tom, I'd like to see you keep working on this (or maybe someone else will pick it up) for 9.3. I agree that our most recent discussing left off with a somewhat depressing conclusion, but I don't think that means we should give up; I think it just means that we need a better idea than the ones we've had so far. I guess it's possible that there is no better idea out there, but I think it's more likely that we just haven't thought of it yet. I feel like we are close to unraveling it, and just not quite there yet. I might be wrong. -- 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
