Re: elog cleanup

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Wow, what encouragement! :-<
>
> Well, I assumed that you generated this patch with the intention of
> applying it promptly. If it was only a basis for discussion, why'd
> you go to the effort of creating a 100K+ patch that will be stale in
> a few days? It's certainly not useful to aid the discussion: a ten-line
> statement of what you wanted to do would've been more helpful. Who's
> going to wade through a 100K patch?

Well, I am making decisions that certain messages to only to the client.
I need people to see those changes.

> In any case, the correct approach would've been to put up a proposal
> on pghackers before doing the work. You *know* this is going to be
> controversial. More, if it's not highlighted on pghackers then a
> lot of people will fail to get the word and we'll be having trouble
> with broken patches for a long time to come.

I just sent the summary to hackers. Haven't seen any comments either
way so far.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026