-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 16 May 2001 19:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I am loathe to even bring this up, but with two messages today about
> >> it, I am going to be short and sweet:
> >> We don't have a reasonable upgrade path.
> This is one of many, many things that need work. It happens to be a
> thing that requires a *lot* of work for, well, not so much payback
> (certainly not a benefit you'd get every day you use Postgres).
> Not to mention that it's a lot of pretty boring work.
All the above are a little too true. And I wish, I really wish, I had a
ready solution to make it less work on everybody concerned.
> So, personally, there are many other things that I will get to before
> I worry about this. Sorry that my priorities don't square with yours,
> but that's how it is. I'm not standing in the way of someone else
> taking up the problem ...
No need to apologize -- your top-notch skills are in wide demand all across
the backend. :-)
As are the particular skills of each of the core and key hackers.
As I said, I was not really enjoying the thought of bringing it up, but I
felt I had to do my duty to the userbase.
- --
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7A/lu5kGGI8vV9eERAvRLAKDDGkLYVthOX5sCGA6DrSy2H6SxEACgqa5R
Q7C+14jxqpNY3L4WSdopZUY=
=ezlw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
