Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8A39FA12B; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:00:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40024-07; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:00:07 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from denzel.in (gw2.sciencetools.com [64.2.32.211]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91049F9F0E; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:57:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (rtroy@localhost) by denzel.in (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02344; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:09:08 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: denzel.in: rtroy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:09:08 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Troy X-X-Sender: To: Tom Lane cc: Heikki Linnakangas , Alvaro Herrera , Simon Riggs , , Subject: Re: FOR SHARE vs FOR UPDATE locks In-Reply-To: <1128.1164998817@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/35 X-Sequence-Number: 94516 On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > > 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. > > regards, tom lane I'd go with that last option; it's important to get this release out now, I think, as it has a lot of value add, and people get it that things aren't always perfect. I do, however, feel that the "real fix" is vital, whenever it can occur. It's attention to detail like this that elevates this group from good to great. Richard -- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263 rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/