On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 12:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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?
Nearly: explain why UNDO is not required, and need not be implemented. Anyway, its a WIP, but not unfortunately a high one, right now. > 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. I agree. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
