* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Not to pick on you personally, but this is the kind of review that should have
> > happened six months ago, not during a "why is our development process
> > inadequate" discussion on the eve of beta.
>
> Right now, today, in this thread, is the first time that we've had any
> opportunity to debate the design of SEPostgres with knowledgeable people
> other than KaiGai-san. It would likely be better if we started a new
> thread with a more appropriate title, but I see nothing wrong with
> asking pretty fundamental questions.
I agree with asking the questions, but I don't like the immediate
assumption that we're going to have to kick the patch because someone
asked a question or suggested an alternative design unless we actively
decide that's the approach we want to go and it requires a serious
rework of the patch.
Personally, I think it'd be terrible to implement the suggestion that
started this sub-thread since it breaks with what is currently done
elsewhere and what the users of this feature would expect.
Thanks,
Stephen
