* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > Not to pick on you personally, but this is the kind of review that should > > have > > happened six months ago, not during a "why is our development process > > inadequate" discussion on the eve of beta. > > Right now, today, in this thread, is the first time that we've had any > opportunity to debate the design of SEPostgres with knowledgeable people > other than KaiGai-san. It would likely be better if we started a new > thread with a more appropriate title, but I see nothing wrong with > asking pretty fundamental questions.
I agree with asking the questions, but I don't like the immediate
assumption that we're going to have to kick the patch because someone
asked a question or suggested an alternative design unless we actively
decide that's the approach we want to go and it requires a serious
rework of the patch.
Personally, I think it'd be terrible to implement the suggestion that
started this sub-thread since it breaks with what is currently done
elsewhere and what the users of this feature would expect.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
