Re: Link to bug webpage
От | Lamar Owen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Link to bug webpage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01082113304406.00989@lowen.wgcr.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Link to bug webpage ("Mitch Vincent" <mvincent@cablespeed.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Link to bug webpage
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 11:06, Mitch Vincent wrote: > Some people crack me up in their opinions.. If it took him 6 hours to > figure out "int8" then I'm not really interested in anything else he has to > say... Lord... Hmmm... Let's look at the guy's bulleted list. The first item he can't stand is that you can't add a column after any arbitrary column, that it goes at the end. Well, this is really clueless, as you order the columns when you SELECT or when the application presents the data. The second item, however, has some real meat in it. Don't tell me that I should have a correct design before writing any application code. Any programmer knows that the user's needs change over time -- and the database should be able to keep up without any problems. I have myself ran into PostgreSQL's ALTER-hostile environment. I'm patient, however, as I need the featureset. Our ALTER needs real muscle. Some things are already on our TODO list to fix this, though -- and this guy should have checked that. But maybe he didn't find our TODO list. And 7.1 is much better than 7.0.3, the version he looked at. That third item, about int8. Can a clueless newbie who's heard that PostgreSQL is so great, knowing NOTHING about it, find things reasonably well in the docs? Only clueless newbies should answer that question -- I, nor any developer, qualify to answer that question. The fourth item looks like whining, IMHO. The problem he describes is merely annoying to him -- yet it's bulleted. Sounds like a MySQL partisan who's upset that PostgreSQL is better at many things and is trying to justify not supporting PostgreSQL out of personal bias. However, if it weren't too difficult to support index creation at table creation time, why NOT allow that? Do we just not _want_ to do it? I didn't see it in my read of TODO. Of course, the guy didn't ask on the lists to have it put in TODO. But how would he know to ask to have something put in TODO? Our development process is very simple, but is also rather opaque to outsiders. Maybe that's a good thing; maybe that's bad. Should we let just any user know that if they want a feature, they need to ask to have it placed on TODO? Or are people really not reading the docs? (Experienced admins know the answer to THATquestion.....) Our documentation is, however, much better now than when I started. Kudos to Thomas and all the rest that have contributed. I also like the direction techdocs.postgresql.org is going. The last worthwhile item on this guy's list is changing ownership of a database. Well, I haven't yet had to do this: can we do this easily? Just because someone is clueless and even obnoxious in their comments doesn't automatically disqualify what they say from validity. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: