From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the selectlimit |
Date: | 2001-10-23 03:56:24 |
Message-ID: | 200110230352.XAA05744@www.wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 22 October 2001 10:32 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> > I think Hiroshi's point is the same as mine: discussions of feature
> > changes need to happen on -hackers before being implemented.
[snip]
> > Subscriptions to other mailing lists should not be required to stay up
> > with mainstream development issues.
> Actually, the reason we have an argument now is the other way around:
> some non-hackers people complained when the change notice went by.
> We do have an obligation to users who don't read -hackers.
If they want to deal with development issues, let them subscribe to hackers.
Sorry, I know that's more than a little rude. But that _is_ what the hackers
list is for, right? 'The developers live there' is the advertisement.....
As I'm subscribed to most of the postgresql lists, I sometimes miss which
list it's on -- but I'll have to say that I agree with both Thomas and Bruce:
the behavior needs to be fixed, AND it needs to be discussed on hackers
before fixing.
> Given the amount of noise being raised on the issue now, I think the
> better part of valor is to revert to the 7.1 behavior and plan to
> discuss it again for 7.3. But it's not like Bruce did this with no
> warning or discussion.
Communications breakdown either way. The warning and discussion was on
general -- a bcc to hackers would have been a good thing, IMHO.
But that's past. It's mighty close to beta -- is this fix a showstopper?
The behavior currently is rather broken according to the results of the
discussion on general. Do we really want a whole 'nother major version cycle
to pass before this kludge is fixed? Six months to a year down the road?
The longer this behavior is in the code, the harder it's going to be to
remove it, IMNSHO.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-23 04:11:07 | Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the selectlimit |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-10-23 03:52:08 | Re: Using an SMP machine to make multiple indices on the same table |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2001-10-23 04:00:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Index of a table is not used (in any case) |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-10-23 03:52:08 | Re: Using an SMP machine to make multiple indices on the same table |