Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu@asterdata.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you should read the thread and the patch before making any false
>> statements like you did in your email.
>>
>> 1. The patch does not use any trigger for routing.
>>
>
> Whoa, whoa! I don't think that Simon said that it did. But even if I
> am wrong and he did...
>
Quote from Simon's email: "It is too narrow in its scope and potentially
buggy in its approach to developing a cache and using trigger-like stuff."
>> You should really think twice about the style of your emails that cast a
>> detestable tone to discussions on pg-hackers.
>>
> ...I certainly don't think this comment is justified. This is a
> technical discussion about the best way of solving a certain problem,
> and I don't believe that any of the discussion up to this point has
> been anything other than civil. I can tell that you are frustrated
> that your patch is not getting the support you would like to see it
> get, but launching ad hominem attacks on Simon or anyone else is not
> going to help
We certainly don't live in the same civilization then.
I am not frustrated if my patch does not get in because of technical
considerations and I am happy so far with Jan's feedback that helped a
lot. I think there is a misunderstanding between what Simon wants
('Anyway, I want data routing, as is the intention of this patch.') and
what this patch is about. This patch is just supposed to load tuples in
a hierarchy of tables as this is a recurrent use case in datawarehouse
scenarios. It is not supposed to solve data routing in general
(otherwise that would be integrated standard in COPY and not as an option).
But it looks like it is a waste of everybody's time to continue this
discussion further. Just move the patch to the rejected patches and
let's wait for Itagaki's implementation.
Emmanuel
--
Emmanuel Cecchet
Aster Data
Web: http://www.asterdata.com
