From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL: EXIT USING ROLLBACK |
Date: | 2014-07-28 10:26:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+GGpH=3Hp4__wWk6TRzjQBbRU=WOVRwzj+rvJBdoJ2LQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 July 2014 10:34, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> On 7/28/14 11:27 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 26 July 2014 18:14, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>>
>>> Today I'd like to present a way to get rid of code like this:
>>
>>
>> You haven't explained this very well... there is nothing that explains
>> WHY you want this.
>>
>> In the absence of a good explanation and a viable benefit, I would
>> vote -1 for this feature suggestion.
>
>
> Yes, I did a poor job in the original email, but I did explain my reasoning
> later:
With respect, I think you did a poor job the second time too. I can't
find a clearly explained reasoning behind the proposal, nor do I
understand what the problem was.
One of the things I do is work hard on my initial explanations and
reasoning. This helps me because I frequently end up not proposing
something because my reasoning was poor, but it also helps me focus on
whether I am solving a real problem by sharepening my understanding of
the actual problem. And it also helps Tom (or others) demolish things
more quickly with a well placed "indeed" ;-)
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MauMau | 2014-07-28 11:06:53 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2014-07-28 09:47:57 | Re: Use unique index for longer pathkeys. |