On 1/26/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
I don't disagree with you about any of that. I don't think you disagree
with my comment either. What I'm not entirely clear on is how consensus
could be reached. Leaving it dormant for the better part of a year
certainly doesn't appear to have helped that situation. We've discussed
having it be part of the main server and having it be a contrib module
and until about a week ago, I had understood that having it in contrib
would be preferrable. Based on the recent emails, it appears there's
been a shift of preference to having it be in-core, but clearly there's
no time left to do that in this release cycle.
Well, I'm not sure that anyone else here agreed with me on that, and
one person does not a consensus make no matter who it is. The basic
problem here is that we don't seem to have even two people here who
agree on how this ought to be done. The basic dynamic here seems to
be you asking for changes and Abhijit making them but without any real
confidence, and I don't feel good about that. I'm willing to defer to
an emerging consensus here when there is one, but what Abhijit likes
best is not a consensus, and neither is what you like, and neither is
what I like. What we need is some people agreeing with each other.
BTW, I know that at least earlier versions of EnterpriseDB's version of
Postgres (circa 2007) had an auditing feature. I never dealt with any customers
who were using it when I was there, but perhaps some other folks could shed
some light on what customers wanted to see an an auditing feature... (I'm
looking at you, Jimbo!)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
