On 28 July 2014 10:34, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: > On 7/28/14 11:27 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 26 July 2014 18:14, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: >> >>> Today I'd like to present a way to get rid of code like this: >> >> >> You haven't explained this very well... there is nothing that explains >> WHY you want this. >> >> In the absence of a good explanation and a viable benefit, I would >> vote -1 for this feature suggestion. > > > Yes, I did a poor job in the original email, but I did explain my reasoning > later:
With respect, I think you did a poor job the second time too. I can't find a clearly explained reasoning behind the proposal, nor do I understand what the problem was. One of the things I do is work hard on my initial explanations and reasoning. This helps me because I frequently end up not proposing something because my reasoning was poor, but it also helps me focus on whether I am solving a real problem by sharepening my understanding of the actual problem. And it also helps Tom (or others) demolish things more quickly with a well placed "indeed" ;-) -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
