Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >> How could I change the viewpoint of the group without making rational > >> arguments when it matters? > > > > Well, you make your arguments, and you see if you convince anybody. > > On these specific points, you've failed to sway the consensus AFAICT, > > and at some point you have to accept that you've lost the argument. > > I'm happy to wait more than 4 hours before trying to judge any > meaningful consensus. > > Rushing judgement on such points is hardly likely to encourage people > to speak up, even assuming they have the opportunity.
This is an issue you have been pushing for a very long time on many fronts --- four hours is not going to change anything. Have you considered developing a super-backward-compatible version of Postgres, or a patch set which does this, and seeing if there is any interest from users? If you could get major uptake, it would certainly bolster your argument. But, until I see that, I am unlikely to listen to further protestations. I am much more likely to just ignore your suggestions as "Oh, it is just Simon on the backward-compatibility bandwagon again", and it causes me to just mentally filter your ideas, which isn't productive, and I am sure others will do the same. Read the MS-SQL post about backward compatibility knobs as proof that many of us know the risks of too much backward compatibility. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
