From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO list (was Re: Contributing with code) |
Date: | 2018-01-02 19:48:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoazyv0vbC7pEtk9-44qKfrX9ySUP-ot09UFQiV82N860Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by
> people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get
> moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by core
> that have merit but don't have development interest presently; and one like
> this that have gotten the some attention and that core doesn't feel would be
> worth maintaining even if someone was willing to develop it. We already
> have this in practice but maybe a bit more formality would help.
>
> I'm not seeing that having it, even if incorrect, does harm.
It causes people to waste time developing features we don't want.
It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we
don't think that, or I don't think it anyway.
It's basically disinformation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-02 19:52:16 | Re: [HACKERS] eval_const_expresisions and ScalarArrayOpExpr |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2018-01-02 19:44:24 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL |