On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by > people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get > moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by core > that have merit but don't have development interest presently; and one like > this that have gotten the some attention and that core doesn't feel would be > worth maintaining even if someone was willing to develop it. We already > have this in practice but maybe a bit more formality would help. > > I'm not seeing that having it, even if incorrect, does harm.
It causes people to waste time developing features we don't want.
We don't want them at all, or we just don't want a naive implementation of them?
If we don't want them at all, then surely we should remove those items. Or move them to the bottom of the page, where there is a section just for such things. That way people can at least see that it has been considered and rejected. And for things that we do want, it is nice to have links to the emails of where it was discussed/attempted before. This is especially useful because searching the archives is very inefficient due to nearly every word you want to search on being a stop word or a very common word with many meanings. It is much easier to find it on the todo list if it is there than to search the archives.
It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we don't think that, or I don't think it anyway.
From:
Ashutosh Sharma Date: Subject:
Re: Do we really need to switch to per-tuple memory context inATRewriteTable() when Table Rewrite is not happening
Есть вопросы? Напишите нам!
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
✖
By continuing to browse this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Go to Privacy Policy.
