From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.2 features status |
Date: | 2006-08-07 08:48:24 |
Message-ID: | 02ab01c6b9fe$2184ae73$6a01a8c0@valehousing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: 07/08/06 04:42
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features status
> I'm constantly amazed at the way people get worked up about
> X-is-not-there *after* feature freeze. If you wanted it in 8.2,
> the time to be throwing resources at the problem was six months ago.
> It's not like Oleg and Teodor haven't let it be known that they
> could use financing.
The wxWidgets folks have a "bounty" page where potential sponsors can advertise features they want an how much they'll pay for them. Perhaps we should look at such a page, as well as the reverse where hackers can say "I'll do foo, but I need $500 to fund it".
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | stark | 2006-08-07 09:26:27 | Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-08-07 08:07:59 | proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL |