| From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 12:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20090112071353.39c85fea.darcy@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
So, what's happening. Is this discussion going into Limbo again for
six months. It feels like the latest round of messages just went
around the same circles as before. Let me summarize the different
possibilities as I see them.
0. Drop this patch
1. Call it Rest and make it 100% compliant
2. Call it Rest-like
3. Call it simply border level 3
I don't think there are many supporting number 0 but... I think
everyone agrees that number 1 is difficult, perhaps impossible, to
achieve so its supporters probably drop into 0 or 2.
Is there any chance we can narrow our choices here in order to focus
discussions? Is it fair to say that our real choices are 0 and 3? Is
there anyone who thinks that number 1 is achievable or that number 2 is
a good precedent for the project?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-01-12 12:34:56 | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-12 12:10:13 | Re: Hot standby, slot ids and stuff |