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

Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view)

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,"Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>,"Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>,"Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>,"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Do we need a TODO? (was Re: Concurrently updatinganupdatable view)
Date: 2007-06-01 19:54:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm sorry guys but I don't agree this is a TODO item.
> ...
> > Also, methinks we should have agreed behaviour before we make something
> > a TODO item.
> There is a whole *lot* of stuff in the TODO list that does not have a
> consensus solution yet.  You should not imagine that it's gospel.

Well, I don't, though many think it is and some have been
surprised/annoyed to find out that implementing a TODO item doesn't mean
automatic acceptance of the idea, let alone the code (not myself, I
hasten to add).

> At the same time, it'd be better if this item were worded more like
> "investigate this issue" rather than presupposing a particular
> form of answer.


  Simon Riggs             

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-06-01 20:02:19
Subject: Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoringfrom backup
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-06-01 19:41:59
Subject: Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group