Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

Robert Haas  wrote:
> IMHO, it's better to just have a deadline, and stuff either makes
> it or it doesn't.  I realize we haven't always adhered to the
> principle in the past, but at least IMV that's not a mistake we
> want to continue repeating.
+1
I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating, that deferring
this to 9.2 doesn't mean that it comes out in a production release
12 months later -- unless we continue to repeat this mistake
endlessly.  It means that this release comes out closer to when we
said it would -- for the sake of argument let's hypothesize one
month.  So by holding the line on such inclusions all the current
9.1 features come out one month sooner, and this feature comes out
11 months later than it would have if we'd put it into 9.1.  With
some feature we consider squeezing in, it would be more like
delaying everything which is done by three months so that one
feature gets out nine months earlier.
Perhaps the best way to describe the suggestion that this be
included in 9.1 isn't that it's an insane suggestion; but that it's
a suggestion which, if adopted, would be likely to drive those who
are striving for a more organized development and release process
insane.
Or one could look at it in a cost/benefit format -- major features
delivered per year go up by holding the line, administrative costs
are reduced, and people who are focusing on release stability get
more months per year to do development.
-Kevin