Prev: construct_array() use with PQexec with binary data
Next: possible memory leak with SRFs
From: Greg Smith on 5 May 2010 22:03
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We are not very good at _removing_ functionality/GUCs, and based on the
> discussion so far, I think there is a very slim chance we would get it
> right for 9.0, which is why I suggested converting it to a boolean and
> revisiting this for 9.1.
>

There's some feedback you can only get by exposing a complicated feature
to the users and seeing what they make of it. This one hasn't even had
a full week to gather beta user reports. Given that it's easy to
disable (just limiting the range on what is effectively a 3-way switch
to two positions), I don't understand why you're pushing at this point
for its removal. You could be encouraging testing instead, which I
believe is needed to know exactly what the right thing to do in 9.1 is.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(a)2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on 5 May 2010 23:55
Greg Smith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > We are not very good at _removing_ functionality/GUCs, and based on the
> > discussion so far, I think there is a very slim chance we would get it
> > right for 9.0, which is why I suggested converting it to a boolean and
> > revisiting this for 9.1.
> >
>
> There's some feedback you can only get by exposing a complicated feature
> to the users and seeing what they make of it. This one hasn't even had
> a full week to gather beta user reports. Given that it's easy to
> disable (just limiting the range on what is effectively a 3-way switch
> to two positions), I don't understand why you're pushing at this point
> for its removal. You could be encouraging testing instead, which I
> believe is needed to know exactly what the right thing to do in 9.1 is.

Our developers can't even figure out how it behaves; it is hard to see
how beta users will ever figure it out.

Now is the time to remove stuff, not late in beta. Pushing decisions
into the future is how betas drag.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: construct_array() use with PQexec with binary data
Next: possible memory leak with SRFs