On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll be frank, too. Heikki doesn't need to persuade you to go his
> way, because everyone other than yourself who has looked at this
> problem has come up with a design that looks like his.
Andres suggested something that is very roughly comparable, perhaps.
And that was it, really, except for your suggestion that I convinced
you wasn't the best way forward (for unrelated reasons).
> As far as finding an option that's better than clearing the xmin, the
> point is not that we'd commit that design. Well, we might, if
> somebody does a careful audit of all the relevant code paths and makes
> a convincing argument that it's safe. But more likely, somebody will
> go find some other bit space that can be used to do this. The fact
> that it's not immediately obvious to you (or Heikki) where to find
> that bit-space is not a principled argument for changing the whole
> design.
I never said that it was.
*Obviously* I know that Heikki is not obligated to convince me of
anything - I said as much. Whether or not Heikki is obligated to
convince me is not the point, which is that it would be nice if he
could convince me. I think that there are some serious issues with the
promise tuples approach, and discussing those brings us closer to
moving forward.
--
Peter Geoghegan