I'm sure whatever conclusion -hackers comes to in the end will be the best for pgsql, and I'll be supportive. But until then, let me note from the PostGIS point-of-view: sure would be great to get this in for 8.5 :)
P. On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> From my point of view, what makes a patch invasive is the likelihood >> that it might break something other than itself. For example, your >> patch touches the core planner code and the core GIST code, so it >> seems possible that adding support for this feature might break >> something else in one of those areas. > > It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is a high-risk patch. It's > touching the planner which is tricky but it's not the kind of massive > overhaul that touches every module that HOT or HS were. I'm really > glad HS got in before the end because lots of people with different > areas of expertise and different use cases are going to get to > exercise it in the time remaining. This patch I would expect > relatively few people to need to try it out before any oversights are > caught. > > -- > greg > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
