| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
| Date: | 2002-04-11 05:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB518AF.76478D2A@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > If the client has to bear the some part, isn't the invisible
> > column approach much simpler ?
> >
> > I've put a pretty much time into DROP COLUMN feature but
> > I am really disappointed to see the comments in this thread.
> > What DROP COLUMN has brought me seems only a waste of time.
> >
> > Possibly I must have introduced either implementation forcibly.
>
> I understand. I personally think maybe we have been a little to picky
> about patches being accepted. Sometimes when something is not 100%
> perfect, we do nothing rather than accept the patch, and replace or
> improve it later. The DROP COLUMN approach you had clearly is one of
> them.
I don't complain about the rejection of my patch.
If it has an essential flaw we had better reject it.
What I'm complaining is why it is OK now whereas
there's nothing new.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-11 05:01:56 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-11 04:51:58 | 7.3 schedule |