On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jeroen Vermeulen <j...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Simon, I think you had a reason why it couldn't work, but I didn't quite get > your meaning and didn't want to distract things further at that stage. You > wrote that it "doesn't do what KEY LOCKS are designed to do"... any chance > you might recall what the problem was? The IMMUTABLE idea would work, but it requires all users to recode their apps. By the time they've done that we'll have probably fixed the problem in full anyway, so then we have to ask them to stop again, which is hard so we'll be stuck with a performance tweak that applies to just one release. So its the fully automatic solution we're looking for. I don't object to someone implementing IMMUTABLE, I'm just saying its not a way to get this patch simpler and therefore acceptable. If people are willing to recode apps to avoid this then hire me and I'll tell you how ;-) -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
