Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362D09FA17A; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:02:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62322-04; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:02:23 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041CF9FA12B; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:02:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kB1J2Dtp001353; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:02:13 -0500 (EST) To: josh@agliodbs.com cc: pgsql-core@postgresql.org, "Heikki Linnakangas" , "Alvaro Herrera" , "Simon Riggs" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks In-reply-to: <200612011055.06368.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <1144.1164924373@sss.pgh.pa.us> <45706A77.8030503@enterprisedb.com> <1128.1164998817@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200612011055.06368.josh@agliodbs.com> Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus message dated "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:55:05 -0800" Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:02:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1352.1164999733@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/36 X-Sequence-Number: 94517 Josh Berkus writes: > So, I think it needs to go on the list for 8.2.1 or 8.3 (depending on what > changes the fix requires) but I don't think we should hold up the release. That's pretty much my feeling as well. The thing is that postponing 8.2 any further will deprive users of a lot of good stuff, in order to fix a problem that apparently isn't biting anyone in the field. And it's not clear that we can fix this on a shorter-than-8.3-ish timescale anyway. The only obvious solution involves adding another header field, which I'm sure is not very acceptable. regards, tom lane