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

Re: WIP -- renaming implicit sequences

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP -- renaming implicit sequences
Date: 2012-01-20 01:02:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> I think we should remove this from the TODO list, or at least document
>> >> that there are a number of reasons why it might be a deeper hole than
>> >> it appears to be at first glance.
>> >
>> > Maybe not remove it, but instead add a link to this discussion.
>> I don't see what that accomplishes, unless someone's arguing that we
>> really do want this behavior...?
> Well, it documents what happened when we tried to do it.  Sort of like
> "features we do not want".  But then, maybe it's just TODO bloat.

I share your urge to memorialize the conversation somewhere, but I
fear it will just cause future people to spend time thinking about it
that isn't really warranted.  I guess we could move it to the features
we do not want section, but that's mostly bigger picture stuff.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-20 02:42:52
Subject: Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2012-01-20 00:29:41
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group