On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 02:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >> > It is precisely this kind of issue that leads me to believe it would >> > be counter-productive to come up with any client-specific hacks. >> >> These definitional issues exist on the server, too, and weren't >> considered early enough there either. >> >> Preventing people from working on the things they care about is not a >> good idea. There is no guarantee they will work on the things you >> care about instead. They may just do nothing. > > We have situations where the "fix it in one spot" approach has > resulted in real, serious problems. Try explaining to someone new to > the project why pg_dump and pg_dumpall are separate programs, for > example.
True, but I thought I had addressed that point fairly thoroughly in my various replies. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
