On 27 January 2014 20:47, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC. > >> I'm pretty surprised that it's been suggested that some people might >> prefer AccessExclusiveLocks. Why would anyone prefer that? > > For one thing, so they can back this out if it proves to be broken, > as the last committed version was.
Agreed > Given that this patch was marked > (by its author) as Ready for Committer without any review in the current > CF True. The main review happened in a previous commitfest and there was a small addition for this CF. It was my understanding that you wanted us to indicate that to allow you to review. I am happy to set status differently, as you wish, presumably back to needs review. >I can't say that I have any faith in it. That's a shame. -- 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
