On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat
> reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make
> common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't
> lose functionality needed to cover the more complex cases.
Right. That is my only point. I am not looking to "dumb down"
postgresql. I am saying that the "default" solution should be that
simple.
Autovacuum is the same way for example. The "default" solution works for
95% of the users out there without having to tweak any knob. The knobs
are there *if* they break out of the 95%.
>
> >>> Anything more and we are being difficult for the sake of being
> >>> difficult.
>
> Even in context, that came off as a bit user-hostile. It probably
> wasn't meant that way, but it sounded provocative to me.
Sorry I am in rare form today. I wasn't trying to be provocative at all
but was trying to be succinctly clear on what my belief about this is.
>
> If the point was that we should not require anything more for
> configuring a common, simple case then I'd agree.
Right.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
