On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > On 06/06/2011 09:24 PM, Dave Page wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> >> wrote: >>> So, to the question “do we want hard deadlines?” I think the answer is >>> “no”, to “do we need hard deadlines?”, my answer is still “no”, and to >>> the question “does this very change should be considered this late?” my >>> answer is yes. >>> >>> Because it really changes the game for PostgreSQL users. >> >> Much as I hate to say it (I too want to keep our schedule as >> predictable and organised as possible), I have to agree. Assuming the >> patch is good, I think this is something we should push into 9.1. It >> really could be a game changer. > > I disagree - the proposed patch maybe provides a very significant > improvment for a certain workload type(nothing less but nothing more), > but it was posted way after -BETA and I'm not sure we yet understand all > implications of the changes.
We certainly need to be happy with the implications if we were to make such a decision. > We also have to consider that the underlying issues are known problems > for multiple years^releases so I don't think there is a particular rush > to force them into a particular release (as in 9.1). No, there's no *technical* reason we need to do this, as there would be if it were a bug fix for example. I would just like to see us narrow the gap with our competitors sooner rather than later, *if* we're a) happy with the change, and b) we're talking about a minimal delay (which we may be - Robert says he thinks the patch is good, so with another review and beta testing....). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
