On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It
> sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
> for us.
> Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
> important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well.
You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony
implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing
something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department,
and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger
backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly
how it corrupted my system catalog".
No, I _now_ understand the use case, but when the patch was posted, the
use case was missing. I would like to see a repost with the patch, and
a description of its use so we can all move forward on that.
Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the
same from everyone.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not