On 11/24/2011 11:33 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
I see the next steps being: 1) agreeing that a problem exists (I know one does, but I suppose consensus is req'd) 2) agreeing that "hooks" are the right approach, if not propose a different approach. (fwiw, it's incredible common) 3) reworking the implementation to fit in the project; I assume the implementation I proposed will, at best, vaguely resemble anything that gets integrated. It was just a PoC.
With this idea still being pretty new, and several of the people popping out opinions in this thread being local--Theo, Stephen, myself--we've decided to make our local Baltimore/Washington PUG meeting this month be an excuse to hash some of this early stuff out a bit more in person, try to speed things up . See http://www.meetup.com/Baltimore-Washington-PostgreSQL-Users-Group/events/44335672/ if any other locals would like to attend, it's a week from today. (Note that the NYC PUG is also having its meeting at the same time this month)
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
