I'm sure whatever conclusion -hackers comes to in the end will be the
best for pgsql, and I'll be supportive. But until then, let me note
from the PostGIS point-of-view: sure would be great to get this in for
8.5 :)
P.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From my point of view, what makes a patch invasive is the likelihood
>> that it might break something other than itself. For example, your
>> patch touches the core planner code and the core GIST code, so it
>> seems possible that adding support for this feature might break
>> something else in one of those areas.
>
> It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is a high-risk patch. It's
> touching the planner which is tricky but it's not the kind of massive
> overhaul that touches every module that HOT or HS were. I'm really
> glad HS got in before the end because lots of people with different
> areas of expertise and different use cases are going to get to
> exercise it in the time remaining. This patch I would expect
> relatively few people to need to try it out before any oversights are
> caught.
>
> --
> greg
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
