Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Here again, trying to generalize before we have anything useful is a > recipe for failure. I concur that ?Process Utility Top-Level Only > Command Triggers? is a pretty limited feature in scope, yet that's what > I want to obtain here, and I think it's useful enough on its own. > > If you disagree, please propose a user level scheme where we can fit the > work I'm doing so that I can adapt my patch and implement a part of your > scheme in a future proof way. I'm ready to do that even when I have no > need for what you're talking about, if that's what it takes.
We have a big user community and what _you_ want for this feature is only a small part of our decision on what is needed. Robert's concern that this might not be useful enough for the general use-cases people want is a legitimate, if difficult to hear, analysis. The resistance we get when removing features is sobering. Imagine the worst case, e.g. xml2, where we rightly implement it later, but there is something that is better done with the old interface, and we end up having to support both. -- 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
