I think PostgreSQL's standards are a bit too high. From my point of view, the team as a whole has no desire to build the worlds best open source database from the point of view of functionality. They seem more interested in the writing the open source database with the world's most aesthetically
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets
of the functionality we want to have eventually. I do object to hacks
that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do it
right.
If the backwards compatability
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at
imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.
I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.
The fact that we put in hacks
I find myself repeatedly arguing for partial solutions, and having to
struggle with other developers who feel these solutions are hacks.
Let me explain why I like these hacks.
When we have a feature that users want, often we can't get it
implemented promptly in a clean way. It can take several
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 June 2002 19:21
To: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: [HACKERS] Why I like partial solutions
If we want to grow PostgreSQL, we need to meet users needs,
even if that requires stomaching some hack
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at
imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.
I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.
The fact that we put in hacks some years ago doesn't
