| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view) |
| Date: | 2007-06-01 19:54:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1180727695.26297.258.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item.
> ...
> > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something
> > a TODO item.
>
> There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a
> consensus solution yet. You should not imagine that it's gospel.
Well, I don't, though many think it is and some have been
surprised/annoyed to find out that implementing a TODO item doesn't mean
automatic acceptance of the idea, let alone the code (not myself, I
hasten to add).
> At the same time, it'd be better if this item were worded more like
> "investigate this issue" rather than presupposing a particular
> form of answer.
Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-01 20:02:19 | Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoringfrom backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-01 19:41:59 | Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem |