Hi, On 2016-05-04 16:01:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> The PostgreSQL 9.6 release management team has determined that there > >> is insufficient consensus at this time to revert any of the patches > >> mentioned in > >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYOWTtBQEL+Bv=w93bvUjbXSUw3uGnp+R29dduZ==8...@mail.gmail.com > >> because, with the exception of "snapshot too old", none of those > >> patches have attracted more than a single vote to revert. While > >> "snapshot too old" has attracted three votes to revert (Tom, Bruce, > >> Andres), one of those was on the grounds of not liking the feature i > >> general rather than any specific problem with the implementation (Tom) > >> and another gave no reason at all (Bruce). When originally proposed, > >> there was clear consensus that the feature was useful, so any revert > >> should be on the grounds that the current implementation is flawed. > > > > ... which, indeed, is precisely what Andres is asserting, no? I do > > not understand your conclusion. > > Yes, and "asserting" is the right word, per my complaints in the first > paragraph of: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoyxb8mx9qtmz-ytaael4svrvqe32yt66cwon3x7kbx...@mail.gmail.com
Uh. I *did* previously explain what I think was wrong (including quoting the salient code), and I wasn't asked for further details. And the issue is pretty obvious. I've the growing feeling that people simply aren't bothering to actually look at what's been pointed out. I also want to reiterate that I didn't immediately call for a revert, initially - before recognizing the architectural issue - I offered to write code to address the regressions due to the spinlocks. Greetings, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
