| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |
| Date: | 2000-02-22 05:53:30 |
| Message-ID: | 22572.951198810@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I felt that the more advanced features like not using 2x disk space were
> quite hard to implement, considering the other TODO items. Marc agreed
> and was going to e-mail him to tell him that with proper user warning,
> we wanted the patch.
> Do people disagree?
Hmmm ... well ... I really don't want to restart that argument, but
I thought the plurality of opinion was that we didn't want it until
a more complete implementation could be provided.
Certainly I'm not enthused about shoehorning it in *after* we've
gone to feature-freeze mode. If beta means anything around here,
it means "you missed the bus for adding features".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-02-22 06:34:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-22 05:43:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |