On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 16:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So I think this is dead code. The attached patch removes it.
> >
> > Yeah, it is dead code; it's a leftover from Vadim's old plan to implement
> > Oracle-style UNDO. AFAIK none of the current crop of hackers wants to
> > proceed in that direction, so we may as well remove the last traces.
>
> Agreed.
>
> We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
> WIPs.
Sorry, what's your WIP? Explain why nobody wants to implement UNDO? Or
implement UNDO? Or why at some point somebody wanted to implement UNDO?
Now I remember that in the WAL docs there is a paragraph or two
mentioning that in a future project we want to implement UNDO ... maybe
it's a good idea to rip that off.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
"Un poeta es un mundo encerrado en un hombre" (Victor Hugo)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
