Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Unless you are going to *pay* for it - you do realize that the best
way to get it implemented, would be to open up the source code, and
give it a try yourself?
If it was so easy, and such a clear win, I think one of the very
competent people using PostgreSQL today would have already done it?
No actually, and your reply is offensive. There are a lot of things
PostgreSQL is missing that are "easy" and a clear win, yet people still
don't do them. A simple one is the ridiculous usage of pg_dump and
pg_dumpall. Or that we can't use pg_restore to use the plain text
backup.
I think his email was very well written and a simple request of
discussion of alternatives as well as future plans.
Offensive is relative. I find it offensive when people demand things on
one of the many mailing lists I read without providing anything to the
community.
I didn't realize the original poster did not fit this class of person.
For this, I apologize. As for tone - I don't see anything technically
wrong with my response. The best way to get something done *is* to pay
for it, or do it yourself. It's a tried and true practice in the open
source community. Also, I do not think it is as easy as you say - but
feel free to continue the discussion and prove how idiotic I am for
calling the problem "not easy". :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
