Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > This was discussed on-list by 2 core team members, a committer and > > > myself, but I see no requirements change here. You even accepted the > > > invisible COPY optimization in your last post - why unpick that now? > > > Please forgive my tone, but I am lost for reasonable yet expressive > > > words. > > > > Do you think you are the only one who has rewritten a patch multiple > > times? We all have. The goal is to get the functionality into the > > system in the most seamless way possible. Considering the number of > > people who use PostgreSQL, if it takes use 10 tries, it is worth it > > considering the thousands of people who will use it. Would you have us > > include a sub-optimal patch and have thousands of people adjust to its > > non-optimal functionality? I am sure you would not. Perhaps a company > > would say, "Oh, just ship it", but we don't. > > You're right. > > Not like we've not been here before, eh? > > [I'll look at the tech another day]
I know it is discouraging. I have felt it many times myself. However, I have to keep my eye on the greater good that we are doing as a project, and that my frustration is a small price to pay for the greater usability we will give to our users. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
