On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> we have a consensus behind changing it, which it's starting to >> sound like we do. > > I think you misread the +1s from Masao and myself. > > Those confusing things are options and I want them to remain optional, > not compressed into a potentially too simple model based upon how the > world looks right now.
I didn't, but Heikki, Kevin and Tom seem to be on the other side, so we at least have to consider where to go with it. We're going to need a bunch of GUCs any way we slice it. The issue is whether there's a way to slice it that involves fewer AND and OR operators that have to be understood by users. I'm still unconvinced of our ability to come up with a solid design in the time we have, but I think it would make sense to listen to proposals people want to make. I poked some holes in Heikki's design from this morning (which was, more or less, my design from last week) but that doesn't mean they can't be plugged. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
