Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200612011916.kB1JGRx16905@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > So at this point we are facing three options: > > ????????- throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment; > > ????????- postpone 8.2 until we can think of a real fix, which might > > ???????? ?be a major undertaking; > > ????????- ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1 had. > > None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last > > is the least bad. > > Yes. If it was earlier in the beta cycle I'd say no, but frankly this > behavior has existed for two years without examples of real-life data > loss. Further, the TPC tests, which are supposed to give ACID properties > a workout, would not break this, so the industry doesn't consider it very > important either. > > So, I think it needs to go on the list for 8.2.1 or 8.3 (depending on what > changes the fix requires) but I don't think we should hold up the release. We cannot add something this major in a minor release --- it would have to be 8.3. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: