Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
> >>why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> >>would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> >>it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected
> >>after approval - even if things are written properly ...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Agreed. The problem with this patch is that originally we just wanted
> >views, and later the idea of putting a query in there was agreed on, so
> >the feature request has changed over time.
When the idea was originally discussed, we didn't want queries because
some thought they would be too much overhead, but later discussion
thought queries would be very useful. The basic issue is that "ease of
use" is getting more weight than it used to as we expand our user base.
> my original proposal said that we should support SELECT in there.
> before we started to work it was changed to views - now we are moving
> backwards towards the original idea.
> the problem is not that it might have to be changed; the problem is that
> for those people out there who actually put the money on the table this
> way of decision making is not too obvious and will definitely lead to
> future frustration - and this is what we all want to avoid.
We support what we ship, not what others add.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
