On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> My feeling is that if it's as flakey and unreliable as it currently
>> is, we shouldn't ship it. Removing it from CVS doesn't mean "you
>> can't use this any more"; this is open source. It just means people
>> will have to go and get an old copy out of CVS and presumably in so
>> doing they will be aware that we've removed it for a reason. We have
>> a well-deserved reputation for quality and I would like to see us
>> preserve that.
> [ shrug... ] It is not any more flaky than it's been since it was put in.
> The people who have been depending on it presumably have use-patterns
> for which it doesn't fail, and we're not going to be doing them a
> service by ripping out functionality for which we can't offer a
Well, then we'd at least better update the documentation to (1) remove
the statement that this will be removed in 8.4 (since we didn't), and
(2) add a very, very large warning that this will crash if you do
almost anything with it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-02-01 18:50:22|
|Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-01 18:40:06|
|Subject: Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns|