Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, here's a question. Given the recent discussion re full 
>> disjunction, I'd like to know what sort of commitment we are going to 
>> give people who work on proposed projects.
> Um, if you mean are we going to promise to accept a patch in advance of
> seeing it, the answer is certainly not.  Still, a SoC author can improve
> his chances in all the usual ways, primarily by getting discussion and
> rough consensus on a spec and then on an implementation sketch before
> he starts to do much code.  Lots of showstopper problems can be caught
> at that stage.


Correct me if I am wrong, but would the way that HOT has been handled be
a good way for the SoC people to do things?

Joshua D. Drake

> I think the main problems with the FD patch were (1) much of the
> community was never actually sold on it being a useful feature,
> and (2) the implementation was not something anyone wanted to accept
> into core, because of its klugy API.  Both of these points could have
> been dealt with before a line of code had been written, but they were
> not :-(
>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to