On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I'm not going to rehash the arguments I have made before; they are all
> > archived. Suffice to say you are simply wrong. The number of
> > complaints over the years shows that there IS a need.
>
>
> I at no point suggested that there was not a need. I only suggest that
> the need may not be as great as some suspect or feel. To be honest -- if
> your arguments were the "need" that everyone had... it would have been
> implemented some how. It hasn't yet which would suggest that the number
> of people that have the "need" at your level is not as great as the
> number of people who have different "needs" from PostgreSQL.
But the problem is that as more and more people put larger and larger
datasets, that are mission-critical, into PostgreSQL, the need will
grow larger and larger.
Of course, we understand the "finite resources" issue, and are not
badgering/complaining. Simply, we are trying to make our case that
this is something that should go on the TODO list, and be kept in
the back of developers' minds.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"You ask us the same question every day, and we give you the
same answer every day. Someday, we hope that you will believe us..."
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to a reporter
