| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, YebHavinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net" <w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
| Date: | 2010-12-05 17:10:57 |
| Message-ID: | 26499.1291569057@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/04/2010 07:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point in the future, but I think it's premature to speculate about whether it'd be useful here.
> I'd need a lot of convincing if it imposed an extra burden on people
> like Tom. The only way I could see working is if some committer took
> ownership of the topic branch and guaranteed to keep it pretty much in
> sync with the master branch.
Well, allegedly this is one of the reasons we moved to git. Anybody can
do that in their own repository, just as easily as a core committer
could. AFAICS it's not necessary for the core repo to contain the
branch, up until the point where it's ready to merge into master.
>> What is needed right now is design work, not code.
> Indeed. In this case I don't think we even have agreement on the
> features let alone how they might work.
Yeah. But it's fair to look ahead to how development might proceed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-05 17:13:32 | Re: serializable read only deferrable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-05 17:07:15 | Re: Using different semaphore for locking |