On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > It's also my 3rd choice of solution behind fine-grained lock conflicts > > (1st) which would avoid many issues and master/standby in lock step > > (2nd). > > Yeah, I just can't imagine you hunting down all of the corner cases for > fine-grained lock conflicts in time for 9.0. Given what I've been > looking at, it seems like a LOT of work.
I can imagine and have done so. That patch was completed more than 6 weeks ago and can still be included in this release. http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg145951.html That is at least the second attempt at this feature and the design has been refined over about 15 months. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
