Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 12/10/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This is what bothers me about having such an informal TODO list. There is
> > a
> > > danger that people will work in items only to have them shot down, which
> > is
> > > a great way to turn off developers. And there is also a danger that other
> > > people will think that the todo item is likely to be accepted at some
> > stage.
> > I've complained to Bruce about that before --- there are a number of items
> > on TODO that only one person thinks is a good idea.
> > Perhaps some sort of [controversial] marker would be useful to warn
> > people that the item needs more discussion before going off in a corner
> > and trying to implement it.
> > regards, tom lane
> Actually some items are marked with a '?' that shows that that item
> needs discussion... although that it's not clearly stated in no where
> in the TODO...
> Maybe be explicit about what the '?' mark means and mark every new
> item with it until there is concensus a on it
Well, I would think a question mark would be pretty clear. The problem
here is that no one objected to its addition to the TODO list, so it
never got a "?".
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
email@example.com | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(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