| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SE-PgSQL/tiny rev.2193 |
| Date: | 2009-07-20 18:52:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200907202152.54145.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 20 July 2009 21:05:38 Joshua Brindle wrote:
> How many people are you looking for? Is there a number or are you waiting
> for a good feeling?
In my mind, the number of interested people is relatively uninteresting, as
long as it is greater than, say, three.
What is lacking here is a written specification.
When it comes to larger features, this development group has a great deal of
experience in implementing existing specifications, even relatively terrible
ones like SQL or ODBC or Oracle compatibility. But the expected behavior has
to be written down somewhere, endorsed by someone with authority. It can't
just be someone's idea. Especially for features that are so complex,
esoteric, invasive, and critical for security and performance.
So I think if you want to get anywhere with this, scrap the code, and start
writing a specification. One with references. And then let's consider that
one.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-07-20 18:59:37 | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
| Previous Message | Alan Li | 2009-07-20 18:40:53 | Re: MIN/MAX optimization for partitioned table |