Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes

--- Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
> writes:
> > Though it drove me nuts earlier, resisting the
> temptation to cast into
> > concrete a short- or medium-range plan has been a
> real plus for the
> > project as a whole.
>
> The facts of the matter are that contributors work
> on the problems that
> they find interesting, and/or the things that are
> getting in the way of
> their own use of Postgres at the moment.
....
> Indeed, the TODO list is awfully bare-bones; many of
> the entries don't
> convey much information to someone who's not already
> familiar with the
> issue. Something more fleshed-out would be a useful
> project.
>
> regards, tom lane

>From someone who lurks in this list to see what's
upcoming in future releases, I have a couple of
comments (which may be politically incorrect):

1. The TODO list shows under ENHANCEMENTS as URGENT as
the number one item referential integrity. This is
something we need desperately. And since refint.c
with MVCC requires recoding our application (which is
composed of 115 C++ objects -- and those are just the
database related ones), we've been looking forward
to integrated referential integrity. Particularly
since refint.c is broke for cascading updates (it
saves
the SPI plan). The TODO list shows Jan as having
claimed this item -- perhaps he goes away working like
mad and comes back with a fantastic feature, like the
rules system -- but I haven't seen any posts by Jan
in months.

2. How is it that Tom Lane isn't considered "core"?

Sorry to stir the pot...but I was just curious,

Mike Mascari
(mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com