On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > There's too many "I"s in that para. I've not presented this as a > defect, nor is there any reason to believe this post is aimed at you > personally.
Well, actually, there is. You said in your original post that something was "not correct" and something else was "not handled". That sounds like a description of a defect to me. If that wasn't how you meant it, fine. > I'm letting Hackers know that I've come across two problems and I see > more. I'm good with accepting reduced scope in return for performance, > but we should be allowed to discuss what limitations that imposes > without rancour. I'm not mad. I thought you were. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
