Kaare Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe this has been discussed before, but it does not seem to be a small
> or an easy task to implement.
Yes, it's been discussed to death, and it isn't easy. See the archives
for Lamar Owen's eloquent rants on the subject, and various hackers'
followups as to the implementation issues.
What it comes down to IMHO is that (a) there are still a lot of bad,
incomplete, or shortsighted decisions embedded in Postgres, which cannot
really be fixed in 100% backwards compatible ways; (b) there are not all
that many people competent to work on improving Postgres, and even fewer
who are actually being paid to do so; and (c) those who are volunteers
are likely to work on things they find interesting to fix. Finding ways
to maintain backwards compatibility without dump/reload is not in the
"interesting" category. It is in the category of things that will only
happen if people pony up money to pay someone to do uninteresting work.
And for all the ranting, I've not seen any ponying.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
