Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view)
Date
Msg-id 1180727695.26297.258.camel@silverbirch.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updating anupdatable view)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item.
> ...
> > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something
> > a TODO item.
> 
> There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a
> consensus solution yet.  You should not imagine that it's gospel.

Well, I don't, though many think it is and some have been
surprised/annoyed to find out that implementing a TODO item doesn't mean
automatic acceptance of the idea, let alone the code (not myself, I
hasten to add).

> At the same time, it'd be better if this item were worded more like
> "investigate this issue" rather than presupposing a particular
> form of answer.

Agreed.

--  Simon Riggs              EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Command tags in create/drop scripts