On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> You have comments from three different people, all experienced
>>> hackers, disagreeing with this position;
>> Who is the third person you speak of? Perhaps they will speak again if
>> they wish to be heard.
> Tom Lane. It was the very first email posted in response to the very
> first version of this patch you ever posted.
Tom objected to not being able to tell which version a data block was.
At length, we have discussed this on list and there is no issue. It is
clear what page format a block has.
Please ping him if you believe he has other rational objections to
committing something and he isn't listening.
I'm beginning to lose faith that objections are being raised at a
rational level. It's not a panel game with points for clever answers,
its an engineering debate about how to add features real users want.
And they do want, so let me solve the problems by agreeing something
early enough to allow it to be implemented, rather than just
discussing it until we run out of time.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-02-29 18:12:08|
|Subject: Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-02-29 17:44:21|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|