Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Vadim Mikheev wrote:

> * Allow compression of large fields or a compressed field type

This one looks cool...

> > All of these are fairly major projects, and it might be that we get
> > little or nothing else done if we take these on. But these are the
> > problems we've been hearing about over and over and over. I think
> > fixing these would do more to improve Postgres than almost any other
> > work we might do.
> >
> > Comments? Does anyone have a different list of pet peeves? Is there
> > any chance of getting everyone to subscribe to a master plan like this?
>
> No chance -:))

have to agree with Vadim here...the point that has *always* been stressed
here is that if something is important to you, fix it. Don't expect
anyone else to fall into some sort of "party line" or scheduale, cause
then ppl lose the enjoyment in what they are doing *shrug*

for instance, out of the three things you listed, the only one that I'd
consider an issue is the third, as I've never hit the first two
limitations ...*shrug*

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org