> But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
> some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
> of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.
Yeah, we should announce the mailing list. Actually, I did direct e-mail a
bunch of people (including you) about it and invite them to the mailing list.
For discussing potential features, though, I'm personally reluctant at this
point to discuss major features until I and my collaborators (example,
newsysviews) have a concrete proposal together. It's far too easy to get
sidetracked into a discussion of minutia and politics on -hackers; by
generating a complete draft spec (at least) on a small mailing list, it's a
lot easier to focus on specific goals and schedules, and discussions on
hackers around detailed proposals tend to be a lot more focused.
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-04-29 04:17:47|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement sharable row-level locks, and use them for foreign key |
|Previous:||From: Brent Verner||Date: 2005-04-29 00:49:28|
|Subject: Re: [proposal] protocol extension to support loadable stream filters|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-04-29 04:35:19|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement|
|Previous:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2005-04-29 00:16:24|
|Subject: Hey, Pervasive folks|