On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2019-01-31 13:46:33 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I have reviewed this patch and I am in favor of it. I think it likely
> > needs minor rebasing because of the heap_open -> table_open renaming.
> > I also agree that it's worth taking some deadlock risk for the rather
> > massive performance gain, although I suspect it's likely that a few
> > users are going to complain about deadlocks and I wonder whether we'll
> > have to put some energy into that problem at some point. However, I
> > think what we probably want to do there is reduce the probability of
> > deadlocks through some trickery or maybe invent some new locking
> > mechanisms that work around the problem. The alternative of trying to
> > block this patch seems unpalatable.
>
> Are you saying that such workarounds would have to be merged at the same
> time as this patch? Or that we'd address such complaints that way at a
> later time?
Later.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company