On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > And I don't > think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people > here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables > unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.
The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored. People need to get used to the new feature set, just as we had to with HOT, subtransactions, prepared transactions, Gist etc.. That may require a thwack from various people, but the responsibility lies with the new feature implementor, not the person supporting existing code. I fully understand your wish to implement a partial feature with caveats because I have argued that many times myself. But I've come to realise that the best way is to build things so they work cleanly across the board. Other developers can plan projects in the knowledge that they can build directly on firm foundations, not fill in the cracks. In the end this comes down to a choice as developers, do we help each other by doing a full job, or do we leave unexploded bombs for each other through short-termism? Now I understand this better myself, I act differently and accept objections if people think a fuller, more complete design is what is needed. Recent demonstrations of that available, both objecting and accepting. Don't see this as an extra task, just see it as one of the many aspects that will need to be considered when developing it. If you do that it need not be additional work. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
