Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for
> > months. I agree with that.
>
> This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature
> freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of
> languishing on the to-worry-about-later list in any case. We should
> have gotten around to reviewing it sooner than we did (the followup
> discussion was around 2006-06-14), but there was still plenty of time
> at that point to rework it per the discussion and get it into 8.2.
>
> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
> forthcoming.
Yea, that pretty much sums it up. Based on the number of people who
wanted it applied, I think we need to have a discussion like this. I can
easily go with rejecting it, but I think the discussion is needed to be
fair to the patch author.
So, what do we want to do with this? Where did we say we didn't want
SELECT? I never remember that being discussed. I remember us saying we
never wanted SELECT or VIEWs because it was going to be slow, but once
the SELECT idea came up, I think we decided we wanted that, and views
could be built on top of that. I certainly never remember us saying we
didn't want SELECT but wanted views.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
