On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:27:38PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:31 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> > Are you aware of such an ORM which both supports WITH and doesn't
> > also closely track PostgreSQL development? I'm not.
> >
> > Even assuming that such a thing exists, it's not at all obvious to
> > me that we should be stalling and/or putting in what will turn out
> > to be misfeatures to accommodate it.
>
> I know SQLAlchemy does support CTEs, and lags quite considerably in
> its support of the latest syntactic elements.
>
> For instance, it took them 8 months to support the "skip locked"
> option.
That is pretty strictly their problem.
> Not sure whether that qualifies as "closely tracking" postgres for
> you. Clearly they do track it, but that doesn't mean they're fast or
> as fast as one would like/need.
We can NOT make their tardiness a driver of our development.
> Sure, that might not be enough to warrant the GUC. I would think so,
> those are my 2 cents. YMMV.
When we add a "temporary" GUC, we're taking on a gigantic burden.
Either we support it forever somehow, or we put it on a deprecation
schedule immediately and expect to be answering questions about it for
years after it's been removed.
-1 for the GUC.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
