Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> The current "(UN)Happy column dropping" discussion, frankly seems to
> stem much from jealousy - hands off my tree, we allow only _purfect_
> contributions.

I think this discussion could do without personal attacks, don't you?

> OTOH there are several existing features in postgresql you would not
> expect, unless you have worked with postgresql for many years and read
> most of traffic on hackers list (like running out of almost all resources
> doing a seemingly innocent query (or having it done for you by a "smart"
> application), or lack of most common-sense "convenience" optimisations,
> like using index for max(), or being able to _partially_ rollback DDL
> statements.

I see it considerably differently. Quite a few of us have been sweating
blood for a long time to clean up those past half-baked implementation
decisions. We're all well aware that the list of those problems is
still very long. Should we be happy about the addition of another such
problem?

I've been generally in favor of letting Peter continue with this
process, but that's only because I expect him to be here for the long
haul and to work on refining his first cut into a robust feature.
If he stops here and leaves it for other folks to clean up, then I'd
vote to remove it as well.

regards, tom lane