On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> Well, post-release, the cat is out of the bag: we'll be stuck with >>> this whether the performance characteristics are acceptable or not. >>> That's why we'd better be as sure as possible before committing to >>> this implementation that there's nothing we can't live with. It's not >>> like there's any reasonable way to turn this off if you don't like it. >> >> I disagree; we're only carving in stone the FOR KEY SHARE and FOR KEY UPDATE >> syntax additions. We could even avoid doing that by not documenting them. A >> later major release could implement them using a completely different >> mechanism or even reduce them to aliases, KEY SHARE = SHARE and KEY UPDATE = >> UPDATE. To be sure, let's still do a good job the first time. > > What I mean is really that, once the release is out, we don't get to > take it back. Sure, the next release can fix things, but any > regressions will become obstacles to upgrading and pain points for new > users.
This comment is completely superfluous. It's a complete waste of time to turn up on a thread and remind people that if they commit something and it doesn't actually work that it would be a bad thing. Why, we might ask do you think that thought needs to be expressed here? Please, don't answer, lets spend the time on actually reviewing the patch. -- 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