Hi,
On 2016-05-04 16:01:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> The PostgreSQL 9.6 release management team has determined that there
> >> is insufficient consensus at this time to revert any of the patches
> >> mentioned in
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYOWTtBQEL+Bv=w93bvUjbXSUw3uGnp+R29dduZ==8K0Q@mail.gmail.com
> >> because, with the exception of "snapshot too old", none of those
> >> patches have attracted more than a single vote to revert. While
> >> "snapshot too old" has attracted three votes to revert (Tom, Bruce,
> >> Andres), one of those was on the grounds of not liking the feature i
> >> general rather than any specific problem with the implementation (Tom)
> >> and another gave no reason at all (Bruce). When originally proposed,
> >> there was clear consensus that the feature was useful, so any revert
> >> should be on the grounds that the current implementation is flawed.
> >
> > ... which, indeed, is precisely what Andres is asserting, no? I do
> > not understand your conclusion.
>
> Yes, and "asserting" is the right word, per my complaints in the first
> paragraph of:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYXb8mX9qTMZ-yTAaeL4svRvQE32YT66CWoN3x7KBxp2Q@mail.gmail.com
Uh. I *did* previously explain what I think was wrong (including quoting
the salient code), and I wasn't asked for further details. And the issue
is pretty obvious. I've the growing feeling that people simply aren't
bothering to actually look at what's been pointed out.
I also want to reiterate that I didn't immediately call for a revert,
initially - before recognizing the architectural issue - I offered to
write code to address the regressions due to the spinlocks.
Greetings,
Andres