On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > It's also my 3rd choice of solution behind fine-grained lock conflicts
> > (1st) which would avoid many issues and master/standby in lock step
> > (2nd).
>
> Yeah, I just can't imagine you hunting down all of the corner cases for
> fine-grained lock conflicts in time for 9.0. Given what I've been
> looking at, it seems like a LOT of work.
I can imagine and have done so. That patch was completed more than 6
weeks ago and can still be included in this release.
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg145951.html
That is at least the second attempt at this feature and the design has
been refined over about 15 months.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com