On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:27:38PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:31 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > Are you aware of such an ORM which both supports WITH and doesn't > > also closely track PostgreSQL development? I'm not. > > > > Even assuming that such a thing exists, it's not at all obvious to > > me that we should be stalling and/or putting in what will turn out > > to be misfeatures to accommodate it. > > I know SQLAlchemy does support CTEs, and lags quite considerably in > its support of the latest syntactic elements. > > For instance, it took them 8 months to support the "skip locked" > option.
That is pretty strictly their problem. > Not sure whether that qualifies as "closely tracking" postgres for > you. Clearly they do track it, but that doesn't mean they're fast or > as fast as one would like/need. We can NOT make their tardiness a driver of our development. > Sure, that might not be enough to warrant the GUC. I would think so, > those are my 2 cents. YMMV. When we add a "temporary" GUC, we're taking on a gigantic burden. Either we support it forever somehow, or we put it on a deprecation schedule immediately and expect to be answering questions about it for years after it's been removed. -1 for the GUC. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers