Thread: Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication)

Simon Riggs  wrote:
> Robert Haas  wrote:
>> At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry
>> around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no
>> objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're
>> going to have it, we should make it work
> What a stupid conversation.
That hardly seems like a convincing response.  Adding a column to a
view when the column contains meaninful values seems less likely to
break things than initially adding it with a different value,
identical to another column, and then changing the semantics.
+1 for either dropping it or making it work.
-Kevin

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> +1 for either dropping it or making it work.

That's my feeling also.  There is *no* reason that we can't add a column
to the status view later, and every probability that we will find
reasons other than this to do so.  So if the column isn't going to
provide useful information in 9.1, let's just drop it.
        regards, tom lane

On 3/24/11 8:16 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Simon Riggs  wrote:
>> Robert Haas  wrote:
>  
>>> At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry
>>> around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no
>>> objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're
>>> going to have it, we should make it work
>  
>> What a stupid conversation.
>  
> That hardly seems like a convincing response.  Adding a column to a
> view when the column contains meaninful values seems less likely to
> break things than initially adding it with a different value,
> identical to another column, and then changing the semantics.
>  
> +1 for either dropping it or making it work.

+1

Joe

-- 
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support