On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> >> 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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-20 02:42:52|
|Subject: Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2012-01-20 00:29:41|
|Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2|