On 6/5/15 10:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other side of that coin is that we might get useful comments from testers on how the feature ought to work. I don't agree with the notion that all feature details must be graven on stone tablets before we start trying to get feedback from people outside the core development community.
+1
The same point applies to the FDW C API questions, or to RLS, or to the "expanded objects" work that I did. (I'd really love it if the PostGIS folk would try to use that sometime before it's too late to adjust the definition...) Now, you could argue that people likely to have useful input on those issues are fully capable of working with git tip, and you'd probably be right, but would they do so? As Simon says nearby, publishing an alpha/beta/whatever is our signal to the wider community that it's time for them to start paying attention. I do not think they will look at 9.5 until we do that; and I think it'll be our loss if they don't start looking at these things soon.
+1, but I also think we should have a better mechanism for soliciting user input on these things while design discussions are happening. ISTM that there's a lot of hand-waving that happens around use cases that could probably be clarified with end user input.
FWIW, I don't think the blocker here is git or building from source. If someone has that amount of time to invest it's not much different than grabbing a tarball.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX 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
