Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 25 March 2013 23:18, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This is clearly worth thinking about and trying to find better solutions
>> for. I'm only against trying to solve it in the 9.3 timeframe. It will
>> take a lot longer than that to get something that works tolerably well.
> I'll bet you all a beer at PgCon 2014 that this remains unresolved at
> that point.
Well, if so, then either (a) it wasn't actually important so nobody
bothered to work on it, or (b) it's a lot more difficult than you think.
This is hardly an argument for pushing a one-tenth-baked fix into 9.3.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
