From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Date: | 2012-10-15 19:19:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKx2MajOtPKRv5WWtXroGsrQpqauX1pLMxTgjvxQ7boTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 October 2012 18:43, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Perhaps we should take a different tack on this discussion: what feature
> development is the continued presense of RULES currently blocking? If
> the rest of us had some idea why you considered this deprecation urgent,
> it would help!
From me, this isn't urgent at all, as I've said. But it is one source
of disrepute for us that I would have liked to see blocked
quicker/better. But we've agreed a way forwards with doc changes and
that is enough for now.
Personally, I think rules block MERGE, but it has already been agreed
that we would ignore rules for that case. But having said that, MERGE
is not being worked on currently, so its hardly a hot topic and
nothing I was thinking about when I brought up the topic.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-15 19:20:45 | Re: Truncate if exists |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-15 19:18:57 | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 - Design Documents (really attached) |