Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

Robert,

> Oh, I get that. I'm just dismayed that we can't have a discussion
> about the patch without getting sidetracked into a conversation about
> whether we should throw feature freeze out the window. 

That's not something you can change.  Whatever the patch is, even if it's a psql improvement, *someone* will argue that
it'ssuper-critical to shoehorn it into the release at the last minute.  It's a truism of human nature to rationalize
exceptionswhere your own interest is concerned.
 

As long as we have solidarity of the committers that this is not allowed, however, this is not a real problem.  And it
appearsthat we do.  In the future, it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.
 

For my part, I'm excited that we seem to be getting some big hairy important patches in to CF1, which means that those
patcheswill be well-tested by the time 9.2 reaches beta.  Espeically getting Robert's patch and Simons's WALInsertLock
workinto CF1 means that we'll have 7 months to find serious bugs before beta starts.  So I'd really like to carry on
withthe current development schedule.
 

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco