On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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?
Later. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
