| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replace oidrand() with random_sample() |
| Date: | 2003-01-16 04:56:50 |
| Message-ID: | 11694.1042693010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> (BTW, this *particular* case may be a bad situation to worry about
> phased-obsolescence, but in general I think it's worth paying more
> attention to reducing backward-compatibility headaches for users...)
Indeed, we've been beat about the head and shoulders on that point
often enough. But you can easily bring a development effort to a
standstill by spending all your time on such matters rather than
productive new work. I think the secret is to understand where it's
worth spending effort on backwards-compatibility issues, and where not.
I can't claim to have a real good track record on making the right
choices...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-01-16 08:13:36 | |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-01-16 04:45:58 | Re: replace oidrand() with random_sample() |