Re: Add a "Known Issues" section

Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Aren't they all "known issues"? You need to be a lot clearer about what
>> distinction you intend to draw, and why it's so important that it
>> deserves to be the principal classification metric for TODO.

> ... However, there is blur border line between them ...

I don't think we want the top-level division of TODO to be a
classification that is inherently in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.
There would be way too much time wasted arguing what goes where,
to little purpose --- because, quite frankly, whether someone else
thinks XYZ is an issue has nothing to do with whether any given
developer is going to spend time on it tomorrow.

Things that are serious bugs (eg, server crashes) usually get fixed
fast enough that they never get on TODO in the first place. And many
of the things that might be called "known issues" don't belong on TODO
because we don't intend to change them (eg, identifier case folding
behavior).

It might be useful to pick up the "postgresql gotchas" list that's
out on the net someplace, and expand and maintain it as a resource
oriented mainly at new users: here are some things you might not have
expected to behave like that. I don't think this should have anything
directly to do with TODO though.

regards, tom lane