"Greg Sabino Mullane" <g...@turnstep.com> writes:
> Which fallout are we still dealing with? Are you saying that the
> developers are not up to the challenge of handling this before 9.0
> is released? (If this were anything more than a simple boolean GUC
> fix, I would be in your corner).
I'm not certain that Robert is saying that, but *I* am. We have enough
to do for 9.0; adding another work item of uncertain magnitude is not
the thing to be doing right now. The notion that it's "a simple boolean
GUC fix" and won't cause any followup work is unjustifiably optimistic.
And that's just for the core code. I don't want to blindside driver
writers and other third-party authors with a change like this made at
the end of the cycle. If we do it at the beginning of the 9.1 devel
cycle, no one will have room to argue that they didn't have adequate
notice ... but they sure will be able to make that complaint if we
do it now.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
