Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Phil Sorber
Subject Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date
Msg-id CADAkt-gSGWohHsyJzabrvfRo2+M3_0ntis81MjnM-BhYQ7Ty8A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I don't like is when I
> (or anyone) posts a patch and somebody says something that boils down
> to "no one wants that".  *That* ticks me off.  Because you know what?
> At a minimum, *I* want that.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have written a
> patch.  And usually, the customers I support want that, too.  Now,
> somebody else may not want it, and that is fine.  But IMHO, posting a
> patch should be considered prima facie evidence of non-zero demand for
> the associated feature.

+1

I'd much rather hear "what you are trying to accomplish is much better
done this other way." rather than, "why would you want to do this?" or
as you said "no one wants that."

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomonari Katsumata
Date:
Subject: Re: dividing privileges for replication role.
Next
From: Phil Sorber
Date:
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)