Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007)

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Jonah, I have no idea what "fault" you are trying to blame on the
>> community in the above statement. The author didn't discuss the idea
>> with the community before spending months on it so we have no obligation
>> to accept it in the core.
>
> You're missing the point entirely. The majority of the (vocal)
> community didn't even want the feature and as such, failed to provide
> viable suggestions for him to move forward. As the majority of the
> community didn't want the feature, it wouldn't have made a difference
> when he proposed it; which would have remained negative nonetheless.

There are so many things wrong with the above paragraph. Vocal hackers?

Bruce, wanted real world example
Dave, wanted it in contrib
Berkus, wanted it in contrib
Drake, (not really a hacker) pushed for exposure even though pushed to
pgfoundry
Tgl, wanted real world example, backed it on pgfoundry
Dunstan, liked the idea but wanted it pushed to pgfoundry

From what I can tell Jonah, you are all bark and no bite. Everything you
mention is bogus in this thread. I read the responses (just now) about
full disjunctions and they were not negative. They were more, "Show me
the beef" which is perfectly acceptable when reviewing the possibility
of accepting code.

From what I can tell, unless the hacker said, "You joy! let's rock and
make it part of core NOW!" it would have been considered negative by you.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/