On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 03:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Yep, good summary. Giving ourselves a few months to think about it and consider other failure cases will make this a great 9.3 addition. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
