Robert Haas wrote: > I am not sure the issue was time so much as the ability to foresee all > the problems we'd want to solve.
I think all that movement is okay. It's not like we're breaking things to no purpose. The amount of effort that has to go into making extensions compile with changed APIs is not *that* bad, surely; it's pretty clear that we need to keep moving forward. All the changes you listed that required lwlock changed have clearly been worth the breakage, IMO. > I think it's quite surprising how fast the LWLock system has evolved > over the last few years. When I first started working on PostgreSQL > in 2008, there was no LWLockAcquireOrWait, none of the Var stuff, the > padding was much less sophisticated, no tranches, no atomics, volatile > qualifiers all over the place... and all of that has changed in the > last 5 years. Pretty amazing, actually, IMHO. Yes, I agree. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
