From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200612011916.kB1JGRx16905@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [CORE] FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks
In-Reply-To: <200612011055.06368.josh@agliodbs.com>
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:16:27 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-core@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> > So at this point we are facing three options:
> > ????????- throw in a large and poorly tested "fix" at the last moment;
> > ????????- postpone 8.2 until we can think of a real fix, which might
> > ???????? ?be a major undertaking;
> > ????????- ship 8.2 with the same behavior 8.0 and 8.1 had.
> > None of these are very attractive, but I'm starting to think the last
> > is the least bad.
> 
> Yes.  If it was earlier in the beta cycle I'd say no, but frankly this 
> behavior has existed for two years without examples of real-life data 
> loss.  Further, the TPC tests, which are supposed to give ACID properties 
> a workout, would not break this, so the industry doesn't consider it very 
> important either.
> 
> 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.

We cannot add something this major in a minor release --- it would have
to be 8.3.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +