On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 03:06:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob > > does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution. As > > everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be > > needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such > > testing in the 9.3 timeframe. This problem needs to be attacked in > > an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under > > time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing. > > Well, it has been tackled like that and we've *all* got nowhere. No > worries, I can wait a year for that beer.
This was the obvious result of this discussion --- it is a shame we had to discuss this rather than working on more pressing 9.3 issues. I also think someone saying "I would like to apply this now" is more disruptive than casual discussion about things like buffer count locking. -- 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
