Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> Yes, I think that's the right way to think about it. At a guess, it's > >> two man-months of work to get it in, and ripping it out is likely > >> technically fairly simple but will probably be politically impossible. > > > I figure if there is sufficient usage, we will not need to remove it, > > and if there isn't, we will have no objections to removing it. > > That leaves a wide gray area where there are a few people using it but > not really enough to justify the support effort. Even if there are > demonstrably no users (which can never be demonstrated in practice), > politically it's very hard to rip out a "major feature" --- it makes the > project look bad. So I think the above is Pollyanna-ish nonsense.
I don't even know what "Pollyanna-ish nonsense" means, and it would be better if you used less flowery/inflamitory prose. > Once we ship a release with SEPostgres in it, we're committed. The MS Windows port took 1-2 years to solidify and during the solidification period we accepted problems and didn't treat it as a major platform. I think if SE-Linux support is added, there would be a similar period where the features is not treated as major while we work out any problems. We might even label it that way. Labeling SE-Postgres as such might minimize the political problems of removing it in the future, if that becomes necessary. I know there has been complaints about the lack of SE-PostgreSQL developers, but given the number of developers we had for the Win32 port vs. the installed base, I think having one dedicated SE-PostgreSQL developer is much more percentage-wise than we had for MS Windows. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
