From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench \for or similar loop |
Date: | 2011-04-20 19:23:44 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTiktfyc9bTgnC4RZ4uyMzaPo6_tN-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 02:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> > It is precisely this kind of issue that leads me to believe it would
>> > be counter-productive to come up with any client-specific hacks.
>>
>> These definitional issues exist on the server, too, and weren't
>> considered early enough there either.
>>
>> Preventing people from working on the things they care about is not a
>> good idea. There is no guarantee they will work on the things you
>> care about instead. They may just do nothing.
>
> We have situations where the "fix it in one spot" approach has
> resulted in real, serious problems. Try explaining to someone new to
> the project why pg_dump and pg_dumpall are separate programs, for
> example.
True, but I thought I had addressed that point fairly thoroughly in my
various replies.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-04-20 19:34:46 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-20 19:22:24 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |