| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: AW: AW: Call for alpha testing: planner statistics revi sion s |
| Date: | 2001-06-18 15:49:43 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368331@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The point is, that if the combined effort of all "hackers" (with the
> > help of some large scale users) cannot come to a more or less
> > generally adequate answer, the field dba most certainly won't eighter.
>
> True, but I regard your "if" as unproven. The reason for this call for
> alpha testing is to find out whether we have a good enough solution or
> not. I feel no compulsion to assume that it's not good enough on the
> basis of no evidence.
Yes, sure, sorry. I certainly don't mean to be offensive. I am just
very interested in this area, and the reasoning behind your decisions.
Time to start reading all your code comments, and doing test cases :-)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-18 16:24:36 | Re: UNIQUE INDEX unaware of transactions (a spin ofquestion) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-18 15:47:34 | Re: Doc translation |