Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVN2w-00005g-4Z for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:48:58 +0000 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVN2t-0005EC-Ie for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:48:57 +0000 Received: from awork2.localnet (p5DDC7326.dip.t-dialin.net [93.220.115.38]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lsi5p-1TOKbV2eYT-012Cxd; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:48:44 +0100 From: Andres Freund Organization: 2ndquadrant.com To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: foreign key locks Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:48:42 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.6.0-rc7-andres-00118-g66266e1-dirty; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alvaro Herrera References: <20121029121833.306930@gmx.com> <20121031210129.GD29247@tornado.leadboat.com> <20121105133714.GA12444@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: <20121105133714.GA12444@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211051448.42249.andres@2ndquadrant.com> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:OEW8DqRiqhe/wHwJICsNs813o9Iq1xf8TOFb+jEKcBV Skmo4sl0DxdxPmQQ8qF++LzalYRzd0CshCCECTLbpe5FvB3pLt FfBbMI70tGbqL/Kr4jzOoTSanFBaOmlvjhS4N+4VU+5kZG1xfJ 5eiglMgu62NO8JpbINUgJVXDa7Z9E5dlBavoI4fGKL2KBBCMMA 44inWcjl4VUaqWqI30jfYPp7UPpv9lOqwFfcM5lQ0vb9fO+YqT jPIjTd3vMqTatnm2xPzDb6I0364wshm79XnNib4UHGgB7B52ym ko0XYWmSvTEf981RJEK2B1bnIHo7vi3tuy7kOHv3uX7LLsSjRb Jo+Dx7wjD55pSFqFX600LvDraqXLaslUYSJOH/Hf09KfzO3Kjy pAtmqL01dKgjA== X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201211/109 X-Sequence-Number: 215961 On Monday, November 05, 2012 02:37:15 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > FWIW I have gotten a lot of feedback about this patch, and since I don't > have time right now to produce an updated version, that I'm going to > close this as Returned with Feedback, and submit an updated version to > the upcoming commitfest. > > This patch still needs much more review -- for example, as far as I > know, the multixact.c changes have gone largely unreviewed; they have > changed somewhat since Noah reviewed them (back in version 15 or so, I > think). Of course, to me it all makes sense, but then I'm only its > author. There also hasn't been any recent performance testing. I am not sure if I can get the time to do so before the next commitfest... Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services