On 2016-04-13 08:36:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I think that a significant performance regression which affects people > not using snapshot_too_old would be a stop-ship issue, but I disagree > that an issue which only affects people using the feature is a > must-fix. It may be desirable to fix it, but I don't think we should > regard it as a hard requirement. It's reasonable to fix some kinds of > issues after feature freeze, but not at the price of accepting > arbitrary amounts of new code that may have problems of its own. > Every release will have some warts.
My problem with that is that snapshot-too-old is essentially a efficiency feature for busy and large databases. Regressing noticeably when it's enabled in it's natural habitat seems sad. > Of course, the real fly in the ointment here is what we're going to do > with the atomics once we have them. But AFAICS, there's no patch for > that, yet. I don't think that I wish to take a position on whether a > patch that hasn't been written yet should be applied. So I think the > next step is that you should post the patches that you think should be > applied in final form and those should be reviewed by knowledgeable > people. Then, based on those reviews, the RMT can decide what to do. Well, I'm less likely to write a patch when there's no chance that it's going to be applied. Which the rest of the thread sounds like... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
