On 12/24/19 12:14 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 12/24/19 8:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>> On 12/24/19 10:39 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>>> On 12/23/19 6:14 PM, Ron wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/19 7:01 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>>>>> Is this something that has been considered for implementation?
>>>>> I wrote a blog about this:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2017.html#November_21_2017
>>>>
>>>> You all are *grossly* over-complicating this.
>>>
>>> Not really. This discussion has come up before and it starts with the
>>> simple case of timestamp the initial CREATE. This would suffice for some
>>> folks. However, it then progresses into a request for full object audit
>>> system.
>>
>> This is directly akin to Henry Ford refusing to build cars because people
>> will *someday*** want computerized fuel injection, crumple zones and air
>> bags.
>
> No it is following this:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/
>
> and this:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20191223051726.GA30778%40fetter.org
>
> and understanding there are finite resources and that not everything is
> going to get done and that choices have to be made. Given that there are
> alternatives available I can see why this choice does not rise to the
> level of imminent action.
If there's not enough time and motivation for the developers to implement
CREATED_ON and LAST_ALTERED in pg_class, then you should have said that in
the first place. We're adults; we understand that OSS projects have limited
resources, and won't go off and pout in the corner.
But that's not what y'all said. "It's too complicated, mission creep, blah
blah blah" just extended way too long.
>
>>
>>> I understand why there is no great desire to start down this path by the
>>> developers, they know the pressure would be on to expand the code. As
>>> Fabrízio mentions in another post this is something that could be
>>> covered in an extension. FYI, I do it by using Sqitch for my schema
>>> object creation.
>>>
>
>
>
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
