Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the selectlimit

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the selectlimit
Date: 2001-10-23 03:56:24
Message-ID: 200110230352.XAA05744@www.wgcr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Monday 22 October 2001 10:32 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> > I think Hiroshi's point is the same as mine: discussions of feature
> > changes need to happen on -hackers before being implemented.
[snip]
> > Subscriptions to other mailing lists should not be required to stay up
> > with mainstream development issues.

> Actually, the reason we have an argument now is the other way around:
> some non-hackers people complained when the change notice went by.
> We do have an obligation to users who don't read -hackers.

If they want to deal with development issues, let them subscribe to hackers.  
Sorry, I know that's more than a little rude.  But that _is_ what the hackers 
list is for, right?  'The developers live there' is the advertisement.....

As I'm subscribed to most of the postgresql lists, I sometimes miss which 
list it's on -- but I'll have to say that I agree with both Thomas and Bruce: 
the behavior needs to be fixed, AND it needs to be discussed on hackers 
before fixing.

> Given the amount of noise being raised on the issue now, I think the
> better part of valor is to revert to the 7.1 behavior and plan to
> discuss it again for 7.3.  But it's not like Bruce did this with no
> warning or discussion.

Communications breakdown either way.  The warning and discussion was on 
general -- a bcc to hackers would have been a good thing, IMHO.

But that's past.  It's mighty close to beta -- is this fix a showstopper?  
The behavior currently is rather broken according to the results of the 
discussion on general.  Do we really want a whole 'nother major version cycle 
to pass before this kludge is fixed?  Six months to a year down the road?

The longer this behavior is in the code, the harder it's going to be to 
remove it, IMNSHO.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Doug McNaughtDate: 2001-10-23 04:00:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index of a table is not used (in any case)
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2001-10-23 03:52:08
Subject: Re: Using an SMP machine to make multiple indices on the same table

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-10-23 04:11:07
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the selectlimit
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2001-10-23 03:52:08
Subject: Re: Using an SMP machine to make multiple indices on the same table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group