Hi, On 2019-01-31 13:46:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I have reviewed this patch and I am in favor of it. I think it likely > needs minor rebasing because of the heap_open -> table_open renaming. > I also agree that it's worth taking some deadlock risk for the rather > massive performance gain, although I suspect it's likely that a few > users are going to complain about deadlocks and I wonder whether we'll > have to put some energy into that problem at some point. However, I > think what we probably want to do there is reduce the probability of > deadlocks through some trickery or maybe invent some new locking > mechanisms that work around the problem. The alternative of trying to > block this patch seems unpalatable.
Are you saying that such workarounds would have to be merged at the same time as this patch? Or that we'd address such complaints that way at a later time? Greetings, Andres Freund
