On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > It's not an immediate concern, though.
My immediate concern is to get some level of buy-in about how everything fits together at a high level. Separately, as discussed in my opening mail, there is the question of how value locking should ultimately be implemented. These are two orthogonal questions, or are pretty close to orthogonal. That helps. It also helps that people have stopped being confused by the term "value locking" (I think). I'm tempted to believe that the silence on the question of how things fit together (such as the lack of discussion of my pgCon talk's characterization of a "pick any 2" trade-off) means that that's because everyone agrees with that. That seems pretty naive, though, because a lot of the issues are very subtle. I think that various interested people, including Robert and Andres have yet to make their minds up on that. I'm not sure what Tom thinks of it. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
