-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I guess my point is, if the patch looks good and does not appear to hurt
>> anything, why not apply it? At least that way we can start to review the
>> progress of the feature itself as it starts to see use.
>
> Yeah, you mean like commit_delay. It really worked great, that
> reviewing of a feature, you know. It only took 3 years until someone
> realized that it didn't work as advertised.
You can not compare the relevant smallness of use from three years ago
to the explosion of use at present. It is certainly unfortunate that
commit_delay didn't work as advertised, but then again had we not
applied it, we would have never known in the first place and now we have
the opportunity to fix or remove it.
You can compare other such features that many people don't touch that
are starting to show promise over time such as cpu_tuple_cost.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGyf4bATb/zqfZUUQRAnPOAKCP8wLnXIJ5B7cYdHGBudZC+bALrACeL6HI
6ZYXLsKD/MSgdnqVkGK/THY=
=HqYq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
